Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 14 May 1952

Vol. 131 No. 11

Finance Bill, 1952—Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a second time."

Last night the naive suggestion came from the Opposition Benches that the blame for all emigration lay at the door of the Fianna Fáil Government. I was moved at the time to point out that emigration as a social ill has been with us for over 100 years and the blame for it can hardly be laid on any particular group of people at the moment. Emigration is one of these continuing evils which is used as a political shuttlecock when the moment is opportune. Successive Governments have claimed to make the attempt to cure emigration. Indeed, I think it was Deputy Norton who claimed that he would stem the tide. I understand a commission was set up in 1948 to inquire into this problem. This is 1952 and so far we have heard nothing.

They must have emigrated too.

Presumably they must have, or else they are locked up somewhere. A cure for emigration has not yet been found.

A prescription. Fianna Fáil——

May I point out that Deputy Dr. Hillery does not speak as often as Deputy Breanndán Mac Fheórais and the latter might now extend the courtesy of listening?

I did not mean to be discourteous to the Deputy.

Deputy Dr. Hillery should be allowed to speak without interruption, and so should every other Deputy.

And I suggest the Minister ought not to interrupt.

No, nor Deputy Blowick either.

In all the subjects that we discuss here we do not seem to give the problem of emigration the full consideration it deserves. We have only to look at the figures for the country as a whole to see the seriousness of the situation. In my county in the last 100 years the population has been reduced by 200,000 people. The figure becomes much more sinister in its import when we examine the age and sex relationship of the people who emigrate to the rest of the community. Those who are emigrating are the active able-bodied men and women and they leave behind them an increasing proportion of dependent people. In budgeting for services that we all think desirable we must appreciate that we are taking more and more money from a gradually diminishing earning section of the community for a gradually increasing dependent section.

A kindred social ill, also used as a political shuttlecock, is that of unemployment. Here, again, we have the blame tossed backwards and forwards. I believe that unemployment and emigration have a common cause, and the cure for both probably lies in the same direction. The only cure is the development of our own resources. In order to discover where exactly the blame may lie in relation to the cause of these twin evils, I would like now to examine the part played by the inter-Party Government in the development of our resources during that Government's period in office. Our primary resource is, of course, agriculture. The inter-Party Government rechristened the land improvement scheme and continued it during their régime. It is to their credit that they did continue it. While they were attempting to increase the productivity of the land through the medium of schemes already planned by Fianna Fáil the actual production figures from the land show a serious decline.

In my own county in 1942 we had 10,500 acres under wheat. In 1943-44 and all the years up to 1948 the wheat acreage never fell below 7,000; in 1949 the wheat acreage in Clare was 3,500. In other words, it halved itself in the first year of the inter-Party Government's régime. In 1951 the acreage was 2,500.

A similar decline in milk production is obvious to everyone living in the rural areas. This is due to the fact that the farmer was offered 1/- for his gallon of milk. He could not possibly feel compensated for the work he had to do at that price, and he gradually drifted away from milk production. The result was that we had to buy butter from abroad. I believe that we can much better afford to pay our own farmers a suitable sum for the milk they produce than we can afford to buy butter from abroad.

In looking to other resources in my on county, which is a maritime county. I am bound to look to the sea. Along the west coast and in the estuary of the Shannon, we find that only something over 249 people are engaged in fishing, and, in the last year for which I can get figures, the income from the fishing is set down at £5,000. Now, £5,000 from fishing in a maritime county is something to be deplored, and this situation exists after an expenditure of $128,000,000 loan, part of which could have been put into the development of the fishing industry.

Our main hope in improving our resources was the tapping of a new field, and that was in the development of the industrial aspect of our lives. This was undertaken by the Fianna Fáil Government and, between 1932 and 1947, 70,000 people were employed in new factories and industries. This is an important aspect of our lives which represents, I think, about 21 per cent. of our earning capacity, and during the three years of the Coalition Government it was entirely neglected in so far as the establishment of any major industry was concerned.

That is not so.

Our story of the development of our country will, probably, be more acceptable from an independent source, and so I will quote a Press report of what was said by Mr. Harry Clement, Deputy Chief of Mission in Dublin of the now defunct United States Marshall Aid Plan Agency:—

"You made a very spectacular progress since 1937, but, since 1947, you have not done so well. There are a lot of reasons for that, but the fact remains that, in the past few years, you have been falling behind the 23 other European countries that are in the Marshall Plan."

The fact that we fell behind every other country in the Marshall Plan, in spite of the amount of money that was available to us, is a serious reflection on the inter-Party Government.

Will the Deputy quote what Mr. Foster said on that subject?

This is my speech and I will quote who I like. That is the history, as far as the development of our resources is concerned, that we have nothing, or very little, to show for the $128,000,000 of Marshall Aid that we received. About 90 per cent. of it was spent on consumer goods.

Last night I referred to other aspects of the financial management of the country by the Coalition Government. I referred to last year's Budget which was not balanced. It showed a deficit of £6.7 million. It also showed a failure to budget for the proposed social welfare scheme. The two combined, our actual running cost and the way it was managed, and our development, give us little faith in the Coalition Administration. They are now crying out for an election as a solution of the difficulties and of the mess which they have created. We have two offers from Deputy McGilligan. We have the offer of a ten-minute speech which could earn us £1,000,000 per minute. Presumably, that would be more borrowing.

By savings which is the best way to earn.

Going on that assumption, I must refer to Deputy Costello's answer yesterday in the House when he was asked by the Minister for Finance: "What tax would you remove if you got into office now?" He said: "I would remove all of them." Removeing all of them, of course, means removing that part of the tax which will have to be raised to enable us not only to pay the debt but interest on what we borrowed. Now, if we are going to borrow more we are going to pay another lender, or if we are not going to borrow, then we shall have to do without a number of our services. At the same time, if we do not tax enough to enable us to pay the interest on what we have borrowed then, of course, we are not honouring our promises. I do not know if Deputy Costello intended that to be understood.

The removal of the food subsidies is closely related to the impositions in the Budget and has caused considerable hardship on a big section of our people. I do not propose to explain why it should be done, but I do propose to prevent the Opposition getting any political benefit from this or shouting about its being done. They knew it had to be done, and I think I can state the case better by quoting Deputy McGilligan on the subject. He saw that it had to be done, and, when he was probably deciding how to make up his mind between expert advice and political advice, he sought refuge in quoting certain Fianna Fáil spokesmen. Speaking in the Seanad on the 22nd June, 1950, on the Second Stage of the Finance Bill for that year, Deputy McGilligan, who was then Minister for Finance, is reported as follows at column 497:—

"In any event, there was one Senator—he named the Senator— who had the courage to say here that he would prefer to see the rations increased even though the price of the subsidised articles had to be increased. That is a line of argument that one can follow. The line of argument that I cannot follow is that made by people who say that rationing should be taken off and let the community bear the cost."

Then he quoted Deputy Childers, who was Parliamentary Secretary in the Fianna Fáil Government before 1948, as saying:—

"If heavy subsidies involve heavy taxation — a vicious principle, because it was merely a pretence in the long run...."

He then went on to quote the present Taoiseach as saying, when he was Taoiseach in 1947:—

"The Fianna Fáil Government does not in general favour subsidies; it is only as a very emergency policy that they are adopted at all."

Deputy McGilligan went on to say:—

"When the first bread subsidy was introduced, the then Minister for Supplies, Deputy Lemass, speaking on the 13th November, 1941, said,"

and he quoted the following from the speech of the then Minister for Supplies:—

"In announcing the decision of the Government, I made it clear that the sum of approximately £2,000,000 which was being provided this year for the purpose was the utmost that would be provided and, if any additional costs arose, these additional costs would have to be reflected in the ordinary way by an increased price of flour and bread."

Deputy McGilligan went on to say:—

"There was never any intention on the part of the last Government to spend huge sums of money on subsidising these articles. We are in this position that since we became the Government the rations on the whole have been increased. The tea ration has been increased. The butter ration has been increased. ...I certainly have heard no complaints seriously made with regard to the inadequacy of the ration."

Then he goes on to say:—

"Do not overlook what is being done with these subsidies. The inquiry which we recently had into bread and flour and the report of which I hope the public will soon have an opportunity of seeing, indicates that the community is being taxed not merely to subsidise the price at which bread is sold in the bakeries and in the bakers' shops but the community is actually paying a subsidy to provide the cost of transport of bread to houses in, say, Ailesbury Road and Merrion Road. The community is paying the costs of distribution and the costs of transport; these are being paid out of subsidy, to say nothing of the cost of these magnificent buildings, which almost rival Store Street, that one sees in different parts of the city. They, in the main, are being built out of subsidy. Once you have too many subsidies there is no way of seeing that they are applied to the purpose for which they were originally meant."

So, I think the Opposition Parties can hardly claim any credit for, or hope to gain any political benefit from, the removal of the subsidies. Acute consciousness of the political effect of removing the subsidies is evident in Deputy McGilligan's speech. He called on quotations from members of the ex-Fianna Fáil Government at the time to give him moral support.

Bad and all as this Budget is, and so far as I am concerned, it is the worst I have had to listen to in this House for a period of 30 years, it helps to serve more than one useful purpose. The contents of the Budget and the Finance Bill which proposes to implement it are so drastic that they apparently have dumbfounded the political henchmen or yes-men of the Fianna Fáil Party. I have been speaking to some of these renowned representatives of the Fianna Fáil Party inside and outside my constituency. Some of them appear to be deaf because they do not want to hear anything about the Budget or what is contained in the Finance Bill, and others are speechless because they cannot understand it or, if they do understand it, cannot explain it.

I have had the experience over a long period of years of addressing public meetings inside and outside my constituency, and when the Fianna Fáil spokesmen come along to listen— when they give you the honour of their attendance—one generally hears them say: "Up the Republic. Up Dev." They can continue to shout "Up Dev." if they have the courage to shout at all but, when they shout in the future, they will have to shout "Up the price of every commodity that every ordinary plain citizen has to eat or drink". From my experience since this Budget was introduced, I suspect that there will be very much less shouting in future at these political gatherings than there has been in the past.

The Minister is hardly fair to his political yes-men when he does not give them the dope to put across his point of view in the country. He will not go down to O'Connell Street or College Green himself and he will not give his henchmen the notes which he relies upon himself when he speaks in this House to explain this brutal Budget. The Minister is—and I do not say it for any personally unfriendly reasons—the most discredited man in Irish public life to-day. His Budget has brought that upon his head. He used to go down to College Green or outside the General Post Office or to Rathmines every time Fianna Fáil gave him a chance but he has not appeared in public, as far as I know, since he took the responsibility of introducing this measure.

He is too busy dancing.

He will get an opportunity of dancing free when the Finance Bill comes into full operation and it is very few people in the public life of this country who are able to give themselves that pleasure of their own free will, with the support of the people who sit behind and around him.

The Minister when speaking in this House and at social functions in the city, before he introduced the Budget or the Finance Bill, has more than once referred to this country as being on the border of bankruptcy. These were words deliberately used by the Minister, especially when he was speaking in the city since last July. Did anyone ever hear of an individual, a businessman, a manufacturing concern that under the law of this land could be declared to be bankrupt if the assets were greater than the debts or liabilities? If this country, which is at the top of the list of creditor nations, has something like £450,000,000 in the British Government controlled Bank of England, how can it be suggested by any sensible citizen, much less a Minister for Finance, that it is on the border of bankruptcy?

The people are asked to cut their consumption, to cut their savings, to reduce their standard of living by 10 per cent., so that the Minister and the bankers who are behind him in connection with this Budget will be able to put more of the Irish people's savings—hard-earned money—into the Bank of England, to enable the British Government to carry out a policy of rearmament. He is also asking them to put more of their savings into the Irish banks—they are called Irish banks but of course their spiritual headquarters are on the other side of the Channel, in Threadneedle Street —to allow those banks as their agents to invest more of the Irish people's savings in England, in the Bank of England, at 1 and 2 per cent. and to allow this Government and the same Minister for Finance to borrow money at home for the purpose of enabling farmers to use their land to better advantage, for the purpose of enabling the local authorities to build more houses, at 6 per cent. Put your savings into the British Bank of England at 1 and 2 per cent. and borrow the money at home to build houses and to develop our national resources, at 6 per cent.

Some of it was at ½ per cent. in England.

Yes, some of it, on short-term loans, but I do not want to misrepresent the Minister. Most of it would be at a rate of interest ranging from 1 to 2 per cent. Is there any other country that would put up a Minister for Finance, in a Parliament where democracy is supposed to be the basis of existence, to put that across on the people? Am I misrepresenting the Minister or the Government when I make that assertion?

The Minister for Justice, when speaking in his constituency, Roscommon— he was speaking at a Comhairle Ceanntair meeting, not at a public meeting—appeared to be very disturbed because some of us from this side of the House have suggested and asserted—and I am repeating the assertion—that this is a British-manufactured Budget. Is not there evidence on the face of it? Look at the Daily Herald or any other of the British papers of 12th March and see the headlines of the British Budget introduced by Mr. Butler on the previous day. I do not say that they represent every one of the items contained in this Budget but the policy in this Budget is clearly the same as was enshrined in the British Budget introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Butler.

Are not we making provision in the Budget, in this Finance Bill, or by Government Order, to increase the rate of interest in the case of the Agricultural Credit Corporation from 4½ to 6 per cent.? Mr. Butler, if I understand him correctly—I read all the British papers and the Irish papers as far as I have time—has increased the rates of interest on loans to local authorities, loans to individuals, so that he can transfer the labour power from manufacturing industries manufacturing luxury articles, to munition factories, to carry out the policy of rearmament. Here, every one of us— Deputy Cogan as well as the rest of us—is backing the Government in encouraging our farmers and agricultural labourers to increase agricultural production, and at the very time when we are standing up here and outside— I have done it more often outside than in here—encouraging our farmers and labourers to increase agricultural production, the Minister for Finance, following the action of his political godfather, Mr. Butler, puts up the rate of interest on agricultural loans from 4½ to 6 per cent.

Who will stand outside a chapel gate next Sunday and say that that is sound agricultural policy for this country? Look at the Daily Herald with its big print—“Subsidies slashed 75 per cent.” Are we not copying exactly, so far as percentage is concerned, that slashing of subsidies here in this country? If we are doing so, it surely is not for the same reasons. Any man who would get up here or outside this House and suggest that conditions in this agricultural country, which is at the top of the list of creditor nations in the world, are similar in any respect to conditions in Great Britain is not fit to be a member of the House, or at least is not fair to himself or to the people he represents. Britain had to sell every brass farthing of her foreign investments in order to pay the cost of two world wars, commencing in 1914, and she only pays for the food she has to import to-day for her own citizens by exporting the most valuable portion and the highest possible percentage of the products of her manufacturing industries. Surely there is no comparison between Britain and the Irish Republic from that point of view. There is no justification—there may be in Great Britain, but that is not my business—for slashing the subsidies here.

Have we not even copied Mr. Butler in his Tory Budget by reducing the travel allowance from £50 to £25 as provided for in this Bill? We all know that the money allocated for travel allowances is used by Irish citizens for a different purpose than that for which it is used in Great Britain. British citizens use the allowance available to them to spend their holidays in Biarritz, Nice, Paris and other continental resorts, but the majority of people here apply for the allowance for the purpose of going to Lourdes, Fatima and Rome on pilgrimages. Now they are to be deprived of the allowance which they hitherto got on a airly reasonable basis, although the cost of maintenance in these places has increased considerably.

The Deputy is travelling a little now.

I hope I am travelling along the lines of the policy enshrined in the Budget and proposed to be implemented in this Bill. I have enough to deal with in keeping to it.

I hope the Deputy will confine himself to the motion: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." Expenditure of money does not arise on this.

The policy I am referring to is enshrined in the Finance Bill.

The policy with regard to securing revenue to run the State—that is what arises.

This Budget and Finance Bill have another very close resemblance to the British Budget. The Budget here was introduced for the first time two days after the end of the financial year. I never remember a Budget being introduced before the last week in April or the first week in May, but again we had to follow our political godfather, Mr. Butler, the Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer.

I want to ask the Minister or any Fianna Fáil back bencher what will be the effect of the increased rates of interest on loans provided in the future for farmers and particularly for local authorities for the building of houses and carrying out other schemes. Does anybody in his senses believe that the farmers who are now looking for loans from the Agricultural Credit Corporation or who may be obliged to look for them in future will look for these loans at a time, when the rate of interest has gone up from 4½ to 6 per cent.? May I ask also, as having a definite bearing on that, to what extent is the increase in the rates of interest on local loans going to increase the excessive profits made over the past 25 years by the Irish banks? The Irish banks, according to their own returns over a period of 25 years, have allocated to their shareholders profits to the extent of £36,000,000, which, as Deputy Hickey has pointed out, represents four times the paid up capital of the ten banks involved.

We are now proposing, through this Bill and the Government policy enshrined in it, to give an additional 1½ per cent. to the Irish banks at a time when we want agricultural production increased, and when the old rates of interest were having a very serious effect on the rents paid by tenants for houses built in the past few years by local authorities. Is it not a fact that slightly more than half the amount of the rents paid by tenants of local authority houses represents interest on money? It has been given to me by the Minister for Finance in writing, and I can produce the document in which it is indicated, that local authorities who borrow money to build houses over a 50-year loan period at a rate of 3¼ per cent. will, at the end of 50 years, have to repay, for every £1,000 they borrowed, £2,030. By increasing the interest from 4½ to 6 per cent. we are going to add to that liability at a time when the purchasing power of the tenants concerned is being almost wiped out or greatly reduced. I regret to say that in some of the principal towns in my own constituency there is a good deal of trouble and discontent arising out of the high rents which tenants are obliged to pay for houses built in the past few years. Interest represents more than 50 per cent. of that cost, and we now propose to add to it, and to create a further and much more serious problem than ever confronted the local authorities in this connection in the past.

I want to know from the Minister— I hope he will not shirk giving an answer—must we in this Republic of Ireland follow the British policy every time. Did the British put up the interest rate on loans through the agency of the private joint stock banks here or what is the explanation at a time like this, we being one of the principal creditor countries in the world, of this free Republic, with over £450,000,000 in the Bank of England, having to put up the interest rate on loans? Are we obliged, as a matter of agreement with the British Government, or is there some secret and hidden agreement under which the bankers of this country must put up the rates of interest automatically, whenever they go up in Great Britain?

One of the headings in the Daily Herald is: “Bank rate jumps to 4 per cent.” I heard a late Minister in the Fianna Fáil Government say that we have traditional reasons for always charging a higher bank rate than what is charged by the British Bank of England. As a representative of the people for over 30 years I want to know—and I insist upon finding out —why we must raise our bank rate automatically with Great Britain whenever Britain decides to raise it for quite different reasons altogether.

The Minister for Finance was called over to London for a friendly interview with his British boss. Apparently the British Chancellor of the Exchequer is his boss on financial matters. The Minister for Finance came back and issued a very brief statement in regard to what is supposed to have transpired. Nobody could interpret the meaning of that short statement. There was no reference in advance at any rate to the agreement if there was an agreement and apparently there was an agreement to raise the rate of interest on bank loans.

It was an exchange of views.

It has nothing to do with me what Mr. Butler does in Britain. It is for the British people to deal with him but it is our business to find out why we must follow Britain in these vital and fundamental matters. I will know the answer to my question before this Finance Bill is passed. I will keep asking the question until I get some kind of an answer from this mad Minister for Finance.

The removal of the subsidies has been referred to at length by innumerable speakers on the Budget and also on this Finance Bill. I am not going to prolong the discussion so far as that is concerned. I want to remind the Minister who is sitting in the Front Bench and I suppose he has as much responsibility for the Budget as the Minister for Finance——

I know the Minister for Defence is a strait-laced, decent, honourable man and would not say anything else. I expected that would be the answer. I am not asking the Minister to plead guilty to any crime but to plead guilty and defend so far as he can defend both inside and outside the House this Budget. I would like to hear the Minister on this before the Finance Bill goes through.

On 29th May, the eve of the general election, there appeared in the daily Press an advertisement for which I was told they paid over £10,000. The funds they had at their disposal at that time were said to be £54,000 or £55,000. In that advertisement it was clearly emphasised—the Minister can look at the paper if he has lost his memory in that regard—that the Government had no intention of removing the food subsidies. Is not this the most brazen repudiation and breach of a pledge publicly given that was ever heard of in the public life of this country since this State was established? They are slashing the subsidies to the extent of 75 per cent. I want to know in that connection whether the Government, including the Minister for Defence, before that vital decision was taken —a decision which is vital from a political and from an economic point of view—foresaw the effect it would have, not alone on the individual citizens including wage earners, but on the ratepayers?

We saw the effect of the Deputy's policy on the people.

I wonder whether they sat down and considered the effect of the removal of the subsidies on the payments to be made to the 70,000 odd people who are on an average in receipt of home assistance. The subsidies have been cut down by 75 per cent. and the cost of all essential foodstuffs will be increased as from 1st July. Surely the Government is not going to let the poor citizens of this State who up to now had to exist on 8/- a week still be obliged to exist on 8/- a week after the cost of the small number of commodities consumed by them has rapidly increased.

I wonder if the Minister for Defence, in collaboration with his colleague, the Minister for Finance, gave any consideration to these matters? If so, would they let us know whether the rates on all the various local authorities are going to be increased as on and from 1st July next? In connection with that particular aspect of administration, the inter-Party Government, during the three years and three months they were in office, reduced the number of people claiming and receiving home assistance from 73,852 to 57,549, a reduction of 16,303, in the period from 31st March, 1947, to 31st March, 1950. If anybody has any doubt about the accuracy of the figures I am quoting I would refer him to page 157 of the Statistical Abstract for the year 1951 where he will see the figures I have just quoted.

I am asking the Minister, who now occupies the Front Bench on behalf of the Government, whether any consideration has been given to the question of the effect upon the ratepayers of the country and upon the people in receipt of home assistance of the increased cost of food that will operate as on and from 1st July next? If so, what is going to be the average increase in the rates on local authorities that will follow the implementation of that portion of the Budget and the relevant section of the Finance Bill?

Nobody gives any serious consideration to the kind of stuff that is dished up to the House by Deputy Corry. Last night, he dealt at length with the debts which he alleged the inter-Party Government left to the present Government when they came into office on 13th June. I challenge the Minister for Defence or the Minister for Finance to give us a list and the country a list of the items and particulars in regard to the items of outstanding debts that were in the office of the Department of Finance on 13th June when the present Minister went in and after this Government was elected by the votes of Deputies Dr. Browne, Captain Cowan, Cogan and the other so-called Independents. Give us the list of outstanding debts that were in the office at that time. Give the list to the country and then we will know where we are.

Deputy Morrissey could give the details of one small bill which he found in his office shortly after Fianna Fáil was put out of office in February, 1948. It was a bill to clear up the mess Fianna Fáil left in Córas Iompair Éireann and amounted to £4,091,000—a very small sum! The least those opposite have to say about the debts that were alleged to have been handed over the better for them. They will get many more particulars about these issues if they will go down the country but everywhere their spokesmen will go in my constituency I will chase them and tell the truth.

Arising out of the question of alleged debts, what provision is being made in this Finance Bill for the increased pay which will have to be given to the civil servants, the Army, the Gardaí and the officers and employees of local authorities after this Budget comes into operation as on and from 1st July? Where is the provision for the increase? I can see it nowhere and I have examined the Estimates. If the Government sat down deliberately at the end of March and decided to bring in a Budget of this kind knowing perfectly well—if they are sane and sensible men—that it was going to affect the pay of civil servants, Gardaí, Army and every employee of the State and the local authorities, it was their bounden duty—if they are as honest as they say they are—to make provision in the Estimates for the increases which they knew would come into operation after 1st July next.

They had no intention of making any provision.

Are they going to bring in Supplementary Estimates or a Supplementary Budget in the autumn? These are questions to which the people of the country are entitled to an answer and they will have it before this debate ends.

I do not want to prolong the discussion, but one feels a certain amount of sympathy for a new young, decent Deputy like Deputy Dr. Hillery having notes handed to him about debts which the inter-Party Government left.

You are long enough here not to be a coward.

Who is the courageous man who said that?

A colleague of mine from Mayo, Deputy Seán Flanagan.

We will send for Deputy Dr. Hillery if you like.

I said nothing derogatory about Deputy Dr. Hillery. I said that he had notes handed to him.

The Deputy must be allowed to make his speech.

The Deputy read from documents.

The Deputy did not read from documents.

He had a file there.

Will the Deputy sit down? Deputy Dr. Hillery made a reference to documents as any Deputy is entitled to do when he is making a statement. Deputy Dr. Hillery made a statement, and it is not right to say that he was handed a statement to read out.

I wonder did the Chair hear the gallant remark of the Deputy's when he said that Deputy Davin was a coward?

Do not mind him.

I do not think I said that Deputy Davin was a coward.

I hope that the Deputy's excitement will not require the attention of the Captain.

What did Deputy Flanagan say?

I said: "Do not be a coward." I did not actually say that he was a coward.

I accept that.

Mr. S. Flanagan rose.

Is it a point of order?

I think it is. The Deputy should be asked to withdraw the statement that Deputy Dr. Hillery was handed a statement.

That is for my judgment. It is a statement which should not be made regarding any Deputy. Deputy Dr. Hillery made his own statement.

I accept your ruling, a Cheann Comhairle, regarding every matter in this House, but thank God I still have my eyesight and the Deputy had a file and read it.

Behave yourself.

Deputy Dr. Hillery made reference to documents as every Deputy is entitled to do. He did no more.

This is all I said.

You said——

I did not know that the Deputy was the man who referred to me as a coward. I do not care.

If Deputy Flanagan referred to Deputy Davin as a coward I would ask him to withdraw. He did not make that statement. If he did it should be withdrawn.

He said as much.

I accept the Ceann Comhairle's statement.

Deputy Davin on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill.

He can call me anything he likes within the rules of order and they are for you to decide, a Cheann Chomhairle. I now give way to Deputy Flanagan. He may, if he wishes, answer any of the questions I have addressed to the Minister for Finance.

Mr. Morrissey rose.

Deputy Flanagan.

I just wanted to give Deputy Flanagan time to cool down.

I should like that too.

I do not intend to refer any more to what Deputy Davin said about Deputy Dr. Hillery but I object to it.

That incident regarding Deputy Dr. Hillery is now closed.

Deputy D.J. O'Sullivan made an interjection in the course of that argument too. It might simplify the procedure of the House if whichever speaker was on his feet was asked to stop every 30 seconds to permit Deputy O'Sullivan to issue a statement on whatever he was talking about. I do not claim to know everything that is to be known about economics; I do not claim to know a lot about economics; I beg leave of brilliant economists like Deputy O'Sullivan to make whatever statement I have to make on the subject of this Budget. I do so humbly and with trepidation. I do so on behalf of the constituency I represent in order to give the House the views of those people as I have heard them, views which I believe are their true views.

For six weeks after the Minister made his statement on the 2nd April, Fine Gael, Labour, the Independents supporting the Opposition Parties and Clann na Talmhan had an opportunity of showing to the people if they could a constructive alternative to the proposals put forward by the Minister for Finance. They had nothing whatever to say. Now, six or seven weeks afterwards they realise that they have passed up finally and for ever one of the best opportunities ever given to any Party if they were right. They failed. They failed because they were bragging, vulgar, vicious and virulent and, where Deputy Dillon is concerned, vindictive. He asked: "Is there anyone so dense in the Fianna Fáil Party as to believe...." Maybe we are dense, stupid clodhoppers. Let us just go back a few years—and it is not so very far back—to the time when this State was founded.

It was founded very shortly after the first of two world wars had shaken the foundation of the civilisation of Western Europe. I should imagine that nobody can deny that the first real evidence that this country had found its legs was the establishment in 1927 or thereabouts of the Shannon scheme. That is only 25 years ago and during that period we have had to contend with the effects of another world war between 1939 and 1945. During the vital years between 1927 and 1939 most of the progress in this State was made under the régime of Fianna Fáil from 1932 onwards. Will anybody stand up here and say that the war proved of any lasting benefit to this country? Will anybody contemplate otherwise than with horror the idea of another world conflict? The idea is being bandied about here; I heard some references to it here last night and I hate to think of it for the sake of this small country.

The really vital period, however, was when the effects of the Second World War had worn off, when the countries of Europe were beginning to find their feet again. Most of them would have been unable to do so without the assistance given very generously indeed by the United States by way of Marshall Aid and loan. Ireland came within the scope of Marshall Aid and loan. When the history of the last four years is eventually written, the use or misuse of the money received from America will be found to have decided the economic and financial future of this country. I personally distrust figures; I like to know the figures behind the figures. The Central Bank Report—much maligned—contains the statement that a great amount of the money received from America was spent on consumer or near-consumer goods. Is it or is it not true that a large amount of that money was so spent? I do not hear any answer to that question. The only conclusion I can come to is that what the Central Bank Report says must be true.

Now, as far as I am concerned, I am prepared to accept the word of the people who are most qualified and most competent to say what happened to the Marshall Aid money and I am prepared to accept what the chairman of the Central Bank says when he says a lot of that money was spent and should not have been spent on consumer and near-consumer goods. If it was spent, that was the money with which this State was going to rehabilitate itself. Fianna Fáil have been given the legacy, have been passed on the bill, have been asked to make up what they cannot make up because they cannot go back in time. They cannot go back to the time when they could get that money and use it again, not on consumer and near-consumer goods, which they would not have done. They cannot go back to the Americans and say: "It is not 1952. It is 1948. Give us the money all over again and we will show you what could have been done."

If you take the schoolboy or anybody from him up, the only answer to the economic position of this country, I repeat humbly, not as an economist, lies in the fact that you cannot now buy the same amount for the same money. A schoolboy in my time could buy 20 or 24 canned sweets for 1d. and he would be munching away for the rest of the day. Nowadays if he gets six or seven he considers himself lucky. At one time he could buy four biscuits and make a lunch of it.

Are we bankrupt because of that?

I am not going to answer that. He, therefore, needs 3d. or 4d. to buy what he could buy with 1d. in 1934, 1935 or 1936. Similarly, with regard to every or almost every other item that one can or has to buy; one simply has to pay more and the only answer to it is to put more money in the hands of the people who have to buy. How can you do that except by increased production, increased agricultural production and increased industrial production.

As a western Deputy I want to answer, if I may, the question as to what the Fianna Fáil Government is doing to enable the people of the West, particularly the people of Mayo, to increase production industrially and agriculturally. I do believe that the most enlightened piece of legislation that was introduced in this House for many a year was the Undeveloped Areas Act, 1951. Be that to the eternal credit of Fianna Fáil and, I suppose, particularly the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Under it a factory is about to be set up in Kiltimagh, County Mayo, 12 miles from my own home which, it is hoped, will spread £30,000 in wages per annum around the town and districts of Kiltimagh. That is the answer to the economic problem of Ireland. That is the answer to the schoolboy who wants 4d. instead of 1d. to buy 24 canned sweets. That is the answer to the housewife who wants to keep her son at home so that he can bring in more money to put more money into the farm, to reclaim more land, to assist the Government in the schemes at their disposal. I only hope that others will follow where the town I have mentioned has given the lead, where they are given the opportunity by the Government to follow, through the Act which was brought in before the Budget and in itself was giving the answer to the Budget.

If I may, therefore, bring out the force, if there is any, in the argument that I have been making, I believe, and I must say I believe sincerely, that the proposals contained in the Budget and in the Finance Bill of 1952 are just and good and reasonable even if they are hard. But I do also say that the misfortune is that the increased production that the Government is trying to get has been, through force of circumstances outside the control of this Government, deferred behind the Budget in point of time. In other words, if we did not have the European War of 1939-1945 and if we had used the money so liberally given to us by America from 1948 onwards better than we did use it, then while I submit it would still have been necessary to introduce at least a certain amount of extra taxation, the effect of that extra taxation would not have been anything like as hard on the people and, in fact, would probably not have been really felt at all. After all, money is only a standard—a 1d., a 1/-, 2/— it depends on what you can get for it. If you have £5 in your pocket and you can buy certain goods with it, if the price of those goods goes to £10 but you also have £10 in your pocket at the same time, the net position is exactly the same. Historically we are forced by circumstances outside the control of any Government in this country, and certainly by factors outside the control of the Fianna Fáil Party in the last three years, to bring in these Budget proposals some time ahead of production schedule agriculturally and industrially that this Government envisages and hopes will come to pass.

I listened to Deputy Costello yesterday using Latin tags for the purpose of proving that there was going to be a Budget surplus. I must say I always distrust lawyers using lawyers' tags. There is another—ignorantia legis haud excusat. It is the maxim designed by lawyers for the benefit of lawyers. Anyone who chooses to study the moral law will know that ignorance of the moral law does excuse in certain cases.

What section of the Bill does this refer to?

I am grateful to Deputy Davin for bringing the Deputy's irrelevance to attention.

I would like Deputy Flanagan to develop that point he is at now.

It has this relevance, that I did not believe what Deputy Costello was talking about. I am not going to disbelieve it either. It is not a fact, it is a speculation. Let us wait for the facts to come about the next time the Minister is introducing his Budget. We will all know then whether there was a surplus and let the Opposition keep quiet in the meantime and let us stop using lawyer's tags designed for lawyers and not for the rehabilitation of our economy.

It is no harm to let the cat out of the bag.

Apart from the matters I have mentioned, the present Government is making a sincere effort in the West to increase production and thereby to offset any hardships that may be occasioned by the Budget. They are going back to the policy of trying to produce electricity from the natural resources of this country—the turf which is in everybody's land in County Mayo—and they have started an extensive scheme in North Mayo, at Bangor Erris, to give more employment and designed eventually, I understand, to produce electricity for rural electrification purposes.

These and other measures are the real answer to the Budget. I do not think anybody can deny that there are factors working against any Government in this country. There are external factors, like the world prices for the various commodities we are forced to import and internal factors in the way of trade unions which are trying to get more wages. I am not saying that I am against trade unions.

I am surprised at the Deputy. The trade unions played a responsible part in the affairs of this country.

Will you keep your hackles down for a moment? The fact is, anything we can possibly produce in this country should be produced here so as to obviate the necessity of having to find money to pay another country for those goods. During the régime of the inter-Party Government, from 1948 to 1951, vast sums of money were poured out of this country to purchase goods that could have been, and should have been, produced within our shores. I do not believe that that could possibly be a healthy development in the economy of a State like this. However, we must import a certain amount of commodities which we cannot produce ourselves, and world factors of various kinds are showing up the prices that must be paid for these commodities. I am afraid these factors will continue to push up the prices still more in time to come. Does that mean or does that not mean increased State expenditure? Does that mean or does that not mean an increased burden if we are to continue the capital development of our country in these vital years? If we are ever to make up the leeway caused by the European war, we must do so in the course of the next ten or 15 years.

Not within the present system, I hope.

Finally, I would appeal to the remaining speakers on the Opposition Benches to approach this problem, even at this late stage, with some vestige of sincerity. I do not believe that any Party or Parties ever let themselves down as much in the history of this Parliament as the Opposition speakers have let themselves down in the course of the debates here.

You are entitled to that opinion.

I am certain of it. They have been shedding crocodile tears over the poor man's pint, over the poor man's tobacco and over the poor man's this, that and the other. They were delighted when Deputy Blowick handed to them the confidential document which was given to him by virtue of his position as ex-Minister. They were delighted when they saw that there were increased taxes imposed in the Budget, and they were very pleased to be given the opportunity of going to their constituents and saying that these taxes were imposed out of spite, as another Deputy has said.

On a point of order, I am entitled to request you to ask the Deputy to say what is the document to which he has reffered and who are those who were delighted at having received confidential information which was contained in a document which I got by virtue of being an ex-Minister. I think you should ask the Deputy to enlighten us on the vague charges he made against me. I ask you to do that for my protection.

He will not get away with it.

Deputy Blowick is entitled to ask for an explanation as to the remarks you have made in connection with a confidential document.

The confidential document was a copy of the statement, incorporating the Budget proposals, which was being delivered by the Minister for Finance on the 2nd April.

What happened?

I saw Deputy Blowick's copy being read by other Deputies.

By what other Deputies?

Deputy Donnellan and the Deputy who was seated at the other side of Deputy Blowick.

I am sure you know who he was.

I cannot recollect who he was, but I am sure of Deputy Donnellan.

Might I tell the Deputy that the Minister for Finance made a cod of himself in my absence here in the House. I made him withdraw what he said. If you go far enough I will make you withdraw your statements also unless you can back them.

I have backed them.

You have not.

Deputy Flanagan on the Finance Bill.

I was about to conclude by saying that the Opposition members have tried to make cheap political capital without giving anything concrete or constructive in return. They have tried to cod the people by mere vulgarity and mere abuse. However, the people of this country are intelligent enough to know the difference between the type of propaganda which has been put out by every, or almost every speaker in the Opposition Benches instead of the assurances that they might or should be given if there were any vestige of reality about the statements being made on the Opposition Benches. They know that after six weeks the Opposition have nothing constructive to say. When they get the opportunity, as they will in due time, they will give their answer to the Opposition for the six weeks during which they neglected them, shed crocodile tears for them and asked them to vote for them on ad misericordiam basis and not on the basis of the intelligence which they have and will continue to have.

The Deputy who has just sat down was talking about making cheap, political capital about this Budget. There is nothing cheap about this Budget. In fact, that is about the last word that could be applied to it or applied in connection with it by anybody. The Deputy started his speech by accusing this side of being vulgar, vicious, vindictive and virulent. The Deputy, with a calmness, a coolness, a collectiveness and, might I say, a culture delivered his speech with a display of good temper that unfortunately one rarely sees exhibited in this House by those who are sufficiently long in it to have got something of the atmosphere of the place. He told us, when he had started to cool down a little, that he was going to give the House the views of his constituents on this Budget.

However, he conveniently forgot to give us a single view of any of his constituents on this Budget. The Deputy knows quite well the views of his constituents. He knows them so well that he would not dare to give them here. The Deputy, with a hypocrisy that I have rarely seen excelled here, appealed to us on this side of the House to approach this matter with at least some vestige of sincerity. I will leave it to the House as to what adjective—the Deputy was pretty free with his use of adjectives—they would apply to the speech to which we have just listened. I venture to say that even one of his colleagues and one of his greatest admirers in the constituency would not apply the word sincerity to the Deputy's speech. In fact, it would be the last word that would enter into his head in connection with the speech.

The usual Opposition lie.

These cheap, pettifogging little lawyers' tricks do not cut any ice with me. The Deputy has a lot to learn, and so has his colleague, Deputy Cunningham. It is something that is a little bit outside Deputy Cunningham's understanding. If the Deputy is not, with his colleague, sent into the wilderness on account of this Budget, he may be allowed to remain here sufficiently long to get a few of the corners knocked off. We have been chipping them off a lot of his colleagues for a long number of years. Let him just keep on and see who will come out best in the end.

Deputy Morrissey, of course.

I must admit that the Deputy is sadly handicapped and that I have many advantages.

Yes, of course you are long enough here for that.

The Deputy told us that he was very conversant with the problem of the schoolboys. Judging by his speech, I am not surprised.

The Deputy is getting vexed.

Not at all. We saw the viciousness displayed in his own countenance when he was addressing Deputy Davin.

Are you coming back to that?

Deputy Morrissey should be allowed to proceed.

The Deputy suffers from the same weakness as other people. He is a first-class hand at giving it out, but he is not able to take it. If he is not able to take it, he should not start giving it out.

(Interruption.)

None of this is relevant to the Finance Bill.

I can give Deputy Flanagan one guarantee, that however low I may fall in his estimation he shall never fall as low in my estimation as Deputy Cogan. There is no possible chance of that ever happening. The Deputy told us that the way to solve the problems created by this Budget was to put more money in the hands of the people. The way the Budget will put more money in the hands of the people is by taking considerably more out of their pockets and not putting it into the hands of the taxpayer but into the hands of the Minister for Finance and the Revenue Commissioners. The Deputy talked about the Marshall Aid money and about the debts which the present Government had to meet.

I beg his pardon—it was Deputy Dr. Hillery. I know that the Deputies and the organisation to which they belong are doing all in their power to play up that. But may I warn Deputies on the other side that we have not even yet started to talk about debts and that when we do there will be something to be disclosed? That will make for even greater difficulties than the Budget.

Away back in 1948 we were told about fairy tales of that kind but we never heard them. Let us have them now.(Interruption.)

I am not talking to Deputy Cogan. Deputy Cogan takes himself more seriously than anybody in this House or outside takes him. I want to tell a few fairy tales.

Let us have them now.

Certainly. Deputy Dr. Hillery quoted from a statement which he said was made by Mr. Clement of E.C.A. I have my own view as to whether that statement by Mr. Clement was made in relation only to industrial production here. It was quoted in that way by Deputy Dr. Hillery. But, if Mr. Clement was correctly quoted by Deputy Dr. Hillery as to the advance made in industrial production and employment in this country between 1948 and 1951, then I want to tell Deputy Dr. Hillery and Mr. Clement that they are both wrong. I think I can probably claim to be more conversant with what happened in the industrial field during that period than either one or the other of them. The fact is—I am not claiming any credit for it, nor do I feel any way proud of it as a member of the Front Bench if you like, but I feel rather proud of it as an Irishman—that during that particular period there were more Irishmen and women put into industrial employment in this country than in any similar period since the State was established. That is beyond question.

These figures are not my figures; they are issued by the statistical department. I am not claiming now and I never claimed that that was entirely due to the fact that there was a change of Government in February, 1948. It was, however, due to the fact that, so far as the Government from 1948 to 1951 were concerned, they were at least as anxious as their predecessors were to get the maximum industrial expansion and production and the maximum number of people into industrial employment that they could get. We succeeded to an enormous extent, to the extent of putting 1,000 additional persons into industrial employment during every month we were in office. There is no question about that. I am not saying this to make any political or Party crack, but I hope that that rate of progress is being continued. However, we will know that when the statistical return for the year 1951 is made available.

This is a bad Budget. It is unnecessary to say that on the face of it it is bad. This Budget will hit every single member of the community. It will hit certain sections of the community to a greater extent than others. This Budget will impact adversely upon every trade and industry in this country. It will impact adversely upon the whole economic and commercial life of the country; it has done so already. There is no Deputy, I do not care where he sits, who is living in or adjacent to a village, town or city and who is in contact with what is happening in our country but knows that business generally, whether in regard to production or distribution, is in a more jittery condition to-day than it has been since the State was established; that people have lost confidence in this country and its future to a greater extent than ever before.

You were not in Tipperary lately.

I was there last Friday. This is only the second time since I came in here that I have been interrupted by a colleague from Tipperary. I will pass on, however. The confidence of the people has been shaken. The people are uneasy, and I am putting it very mildly when I say that. The people are doubtful and dubious about the future. The people who have money are very reluctant, as is well known to Deputies in this House, to invest that money or to make use of it at the moment in this country. Is it not small blame to them? What have they been listening to since last August from the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and, on one occasion—and I am glad it was only on one occasion—from the Minister for Industry and Commerce? The Minister for Industry and Commerce had the ability to see more quickly than either of his two colleagues where that line would take us and he had, if you like, the manliness to mend his hand in this House at the first opportunity he got. What have the people been told since last August? They have been told that this country is on the verge of bankruptey.

That it was not worth taking a chance on.

There is no truth in it. Deputies who are living in Dublin City, Tipperary, Galway, Cork or any where else in this country—whatever political label they may attach to themselves or may have attached to themselves—know quite well that for the past five years this country has been better off than ever before since this State was founded.

On Marshall Aid.

The Deputy ought to recognise his own limitations.

That is a bit too hard for him.

Have we not already had proof of the progress which this country was making? What about the effect on employment and on production? The speech which Deputy Dr. Hillery made was quite fair. I have no quarrel with him at all and I may say that it was the first speech by him which I heard in this House. However, Deputy Dr. Hillery spoke about emigration and unemployment. He said that people on this side of the House were trying to put the entire blame for emigration on Fianna Fáil and he said that that was not fair and was wrong. I would agree with the Deputy but I should like to point out that, when Fianna Fáil were trying to put the whole blame for emigration on the inter-Party Government, he did not makes the same remarks then which he makes now about emigration. It is no pleasure to me or to any responsible person in this country to have to say that there is more emigration this month than last month or this year than last year. That is no credit to any of us, either in Government or in Opposition. We are not going to improve the position by ascribing unhealthy personal motives to the Parties on either side of the House.

The Minister for Finance made a reference yesterday in the course of his speech—and it was played up in the usual way by the descriptive artist from the Irish Press in this morning's issue of that paper—about people on this side of the House worshipping the porter barrel. One has to exercise a good deal of restraint to refrain from making the obvious comment on such a remark coming from the Minister for Finance. The Minister ought pause sometimes and ask himself whether, in fact, he is in a dug-out or a glasshouse when he is throwing some of his missiles.

I do not want to draw any comparisons between publicans and dance-hall proprietors. That will not solve any of our problems. There is an easy answer to this and there is a way out. There is something which has to be faced. There is one authority greater than this House. There is only one authority who can decide whether the Government is right or wrong— whether the Government is doing what the people want them to do or is acting in defiance of their wishes. That authority is the people who sent us here.

Hear, hear!

I hope the Minister will also "hear, hear" to what I am now about to say. I think the issue is at least sufficiently balanced in this House to take it to the people outside and let them decide at the earliest possible moment——

That is your only worry—to get back to power.

If some of us were to look at the matter from a purely personal point of view we would never wish to be back again as Ministers. The Deputy need not be concerned about my coming back here. I have been coming back here for a long time now.

I gave you a good run, anyhow.

I do not know whether the Minister for Finance is aware of the damage that has been done to the economic and commerical structure of this country by some of his own statements. I do not know if Deputies are generally aware of the brake that has been put upon the economic life of this country by the money restrictions that are in force. I know that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs will tell us in this House that there are no restrictions but there is not a man in business in this country to-day, from the smallest shopkeeper in the most remote part of the country to the biggest businessman in Dublin, who is not aware that the restrictions are there. I wonder if the Minister and his colleagues are aware of the effects which these restrictions are having on housing and employment in this country? Unless there is a change very quickly, private building will come to an end except in so far as the purchase of houses will be financed by local authorities.

Building societies have played a very big part in enabling thousands of people to start acquiring their own homes in this country but they are now in the position that they have decided practically to stop issuing money for the purchase of houses. I do not know how long that will last. The Minister smiles. I do not know whether the smile is meant in any personal way. I know what I am talking about in this connection. I do not think the Minister has anything to smile at. I think that it was a desirable form of saving by our people. They were saving for perhaps the highest possible purpose— the acquiring of a decent, modern, sanitary home of their own in which to bring up their children. All the speeches that may be made from the Government side of the House, all the attempts which may be made to gloss this Budget and all the efforts that may be made, unfairly, to put the blame on their predecessors in office will not succeed on this occasion. I do not believe that at any time since this State was founded there was ever such a demand by the people generally to be given an opportunity of expressing their views on how the Government have conducted the affairs of this country in the past 12 months. I sat on the Government side of the House for three and a half years. While I was a Minister in the inter-Party Government I read in the local papers in my own constituency charges by Fianna Fáil speakers who are now Ministers, and by their back benchers and supporters, that the inter-Party Government were not in office by the wishes of the people. Time after time we were challenged in this House to get out and get a mandate from the people for the work which we were doing.

Did they not think of that at the last election?

Look, the people of the constituency which the Deputy and I have the honour to represent, gave a majority of 3,500 number one votes against Fianna Fáil at the last election.

Still, we got two seats out of three.

You will not wangle them in the same manner again.

This is not relevant to the Bill.

I am not guilty of the interruptions and I would appeal to you Sir, if I may, to shelter me from them.

The Deputy is long enough in this House to know that he should not pay any attention to interrupters.

I quite agree. Does anybody suggest that this Government represents the people and that they have a majority of the people behind them? It is not I who should be asking them to get out and go to the people but those who were induced to support them by the publication of the 17 points after the June election, the 17 points which were drawn up on 15th June to capture those very votes and to justify those Deputies in voting for a Fianna Fáil Government. These are the people who should be asking them to get out. I wonder to what extent point 15 influenced some of the votes cast for Deputy de Valera against Deputy Costello, point 15 which contained a promise to maintain the food subsidies? Perhaps again I should not be rushing in and raising a smell which does not appeal to the Minister's very sensitive nostrils but I wonder to what extent these votes were influenced by the promise which the Minister gave in Rathmines Town Hall on 15th May in connection with the reimposition of the taxes on beer, spirits and tobacco?

These are the points we want answered. They are not going to be answered by personal abuse. That is not going to get them anywhere. Goodness knows, I am long enough in public life not to be falling over myself calling for a general election, whether or not I am going to be elected at the head or at the bottom of the poll. I have gone through 12 or 13 in my time and that is as many as I want but it is not a question of what my personal feelings are in the matter. It is not a question of whether I am returned or not. That does not matter two "thraneens" so far as the future of the country is concerned. What does really matter is the Government that will be sent back here by the people and the policy which will be carried out by that Government. We tried in a straightforward way for three and a half years to run this country in the interests of the people and not in the interests of any one section. Irrespective of what may be said by members of the Government, members of the Fianna Fáil Party and still less of what may be said by some of their henchmen, those of us who had the honour of being associated with that Government will always feel proud of the fact.

Deputy Morrissey has made a considerable amount of noise but he has said very little. Deputy Costello in opening the debate for the Opposition did, however, say something to which I feel it is necessary to reply. He said that the dissolution of the 13th Dáil did not arise from the fact, as the Minister for Finance asserted, that the then Government was afraid to face a discussion on their unbalanced Budget of 1951 but arose from the pressure that was brought to bear upon the Government by farmers to increase the prices of milk and several other farm products. From that statement, it would appear, if it is true, that Deputy Costello's Government, dominated mainly by the legal profession, was prepared to jettison its Commonwealth principles, its principles of loyalty to the Commonwealth and to become a rabid roaring Republican Government in order to hold the support of Deputy MacBride. It was prepared to jettison its Conservative principles, which it had held for 20 years, and become a rabid Socialist Government in order to oblige and to hold the support of Deputies Norton and Larkin but it was not prepared, because of its anti-agricultural bias, even to meet the farmers' representatives and to discuss agricultural prices with them in a reasonable way. That is the only inference which can be drawn from Deputy Costello's statements.

I still think that there was a good deal in the suggestion that it was not alone a desire to defeat the farmers and to eliminate the farmers' representatives in this House, that actuated the inter-Party Government in forcing the election in 1951. I think they were also definitely afraid to have their Budget of 1951 analysed by Deputies in this House, to have it considered in a deliberative way and to have its fallacies clearly revealed to the community. However, it does not really matter now what induced the inter-Party Government to force an election. All that matters is that the election resulted in the elimination of that Government. They thought it would result in the elimination of some constructive elements who put them into office but, instead of that, it resulted in their own elimination. Now they are howling for another election. They will get another general election in due course and it is quite likely and quite possible that they will regret it just as much as they now regret the last one, into which at least the Fine Gael section so joyfully entered in 1951.

And came out so well.

Came out at the other side of the House—and that is one good thing. In considering this Finance Bill we should realise that it was a very good thing that they came out at the other side of the House. Twelve months ago, I told this House and the people as well that I was voting against the inter-Party Government because I considered them utterly and completely irresponsible. Is not their utter and complete irresponsibility now fully revealed to the world? Is it not quite clear that they grasped at any money that could be offered to them not only within this House but by the generosity of the American taxpayers who were eager to help this nation on its feet? They grasped at that money, not to assist and develop the nation, not to provide increased employment and increased opportunities for our people, but merely in order to buy time and to buy a little popularity so that they might hang on to office at least for the three years necessary to qualify for a ministerial pension.

We are to-day facing the fact that we had a Government for three years which each year increased expenditure very considerably. Nobody denies that public expenditure was increased steadily over the three years and three months that the inter-Party Government was in power. They did not increase taxation, because they considered that that would be an unpopular move and because they were in the happy position that they could call upon the American taxpayers to finance their expenditure. That is the position we have to remedy now. Supposing a young man setting out in business or on a farm and finding it just difficult to make ends meet, but struggling manfully to do so, were to find himself confronted by a rich uncle who would present him with £1,000 and say: "This will help to put you on your feet," and suppose that for a year he went on spending that £1,000 and as a result raised his standard of living in various ways; and suppose that the following year the same rich uncle came along and gave him £1,000 again and in the third year made a similar gift; would it not be a cold bleak dawn for that young man, having spent the money foolishly on raising his standard of living by luxuries and semi-luxuries and having made no provision for the future out of that money, to find that it was suddenly cut off in April, 1951, that he had to pay his way and try to meet his responsibilities from day to day without all this help and not only that but that we would have to face the prospect of repaying that debt?

That was the position that faced Deputy McGilligan in April, 1951, that was the position that he as one member of the Government clearly saw, and was at least courageous enough to state publicly was facing the country. Terrified at the prospect of having, for the first time in their three years of office, to pay their way and meet their liabilities out of this nation's own resources without any outside help, they rushed to the country, hoping that either they would be put out of office and the burden of paying their debts would fall on their successors or they would be returned with a sufficient majority to enable them to face the harsh Budget they would have to impose upon our people in the succeeding years. If the inter-Party Government had been returned to office they would have been faced with the same problem that has faced the present Government. Even if they desired to do so, even if they wished to borrow money from the United States on the scale that they had been borrowing it previously, they could not do so and they would have found it necessary to impose additional taxation. That is a fact which is clearly accepted. I doubt very much, however, if they would have had the courage to meet all their liabilities. They would have been coerced into imposing increased taxation, but I have a feeling that they would have tried in some way to disguise the financial position and to push at least some portion of the burden on ahead to be met at some future date.

It is one of the tragedies or one of the weaknesses of democratic government that an incompetent Government, a dishonest Administration, can purchase a certain amount of cheap popularity by incurring liabilities and passing them on to their successors. It is always a popular thing to spend money. It is a popular thing for a Government to spend money. We all know that. Those of us in local authorities know how popular it is to vote for the expenditure of more and more public money, but we always have to face the day of reckoning, the day when we have to impose the necessary taxation to meet that expenditure. That is the sort of corrective which prevents local authorities—and I suppose it applies equally to Governments—from extravagantly wasting the nation's assets. But because changes of Government are inevitable from time to time, when the case occurs where a Government has just scrambled into office by a combination of a great number of small Parties and is never sure of being able to hold office for very long, there is a great temptation upon such a Government to evade its liabilities, to pile up debts and leave those debts to be paid by their successors.

It is unfortunate that the inter-Party Government yielded to that temptation. They could have resisted it and, if they had, although they would have incurred a certain amount of unpopularity I believe they would have raised their standing in the eyes of all honest people in this nation. However, they did not resist the temptation. Notwithstanding the fact that they tried by every expedient— by cooking the Estimates, as one of their Ministers expressed it, by borrowing for services which were not reasonably appropriate for borrowing and which were current services, and by leaving debts unpaid—to buy popularity, they went to the country and were defeated. They were defeated, as I say, in this House in the main— apart from the Fianna Fáil Party—by Deputies who were simply disgusted by their attitude of dishonesty and irresponsibility.

I think it is well to realise, as Deputy Seán Flanagan did, that this nation has no future except what lies in the ability of our people to use our national resources to the best advantage. It is deplorable to think that over the last few years the resources of our agricultural industry have not been used to the best advantage. I asked a question to-day in relation to the importation of oats. Oats is a crop we can grow on the worst and most neglected land in this country. Oats have been grown in Ireland for thousands of years. Yet, last year we had a Minister for Agriculture who went, not to any neighbouring country but to Australia to purchase almost as much oats there as the farmers would have surplus here, thereby depriving our farmers to a great extent of their market for oats.

Is not that the kind of policy designed to keep this country poor and in the miserable position of having to scramble for Marshall Aid and assistance from an outside nation? Is not that the kind of policy which leads to emigration? Deputy Morrissey said he did not know how the problem of emigration could be solved. The first effort towards a solution of the problem is to ensure that we get from the land its maximum output while at the same time increasing its fertility. That is the fundamental basis to the prosperity of our country. Yet, last year we had a Minister for Agriculture who went to Australia for oats despite the fact that we did not want them and despite the fact that, as subsequent events showed, the importation of those oats depressed the market for the home-grown commodity.

That is the kind of policy we had during the three and a half years of inter-Party Government. That is a policy we must now correct. The taxes imposed under this Budget are undoubtedly heavy. Nobody denies that. One Opposition Deputy said that the Budget this year was the worst Budget in 30 years. It is a hard Budget but it is the first time since the establishment of the State that a Government has had to budget in one year to correct the neglect of four years. The Government had to take a harsh decision. That decision has been taken and the country appreciates the fact that a reasonable effort is now being made to put our nation in a sound position both financially and economically.

Some of the taxes pressed heavily on a small but wealthy section of the community. That is particularly true of income-tax. On the other hand, I think it is satisfactory that the burden in that respect has been reduced for nearly 90 per cent. of those who pay income-tax. I think it is very desirable that the State should give an incentive to every worker to earn as much as possible without cutting too deeply into his income. When a young man is struggling to better his position in life and when he manages to increase his income it is most desirable that the burden imposed upon him through the operation of the incometax code shall not be so severe as to take away from him the incentive to further increase his income.

I am one of those who believe that it is better for our young people to spend their leisure moments in dancing rather than in drinking. I may be wrong in that. That may be only a silly prejudice on my part but that is my belief. I think it should be the aim of any Government to ensure that dancing will be as cheap as possible for our young people and that, if there is any revenue made out of dancing, it will be utilised for the benefit of the district in which the dances are held—utilised for the local Fine Gael club, or the local Fianna Fáil club, or for the improvement of the schools or the provision of any amenity locally for which money may be required.

Is the Deputy serious?

If you ask me, it is the first time he was ever serious about anything.

It is a sound policy to improve local amenities. We know that under the system in operation there were certain exemptions in relation to areas with a population of under 500. That created problems which could not be solved. Everybody knows the problems that were created because of that exemption. The tax was administratively impossible and it simply had to be abolished. There was only one alternative and that was to have no exemptions at all. I think the Government took the wise course in abolishing the tax and I think the Government should now ensure that the remission is passed on to those who enjoy that particular amenity so that dancing will in future be cheaper particularly in the larger towns and cities.

A good deal has been said about housing. Housing made considerable progress over the last few years; it is still making considerable progress. Housing is a function of local authorities and there is nothing to prevent local authorities going ahead with housing at the present time. I am a member of a local authority and we have this year a more ambitious and more extensive programme than we had last year and we are going ahead with housing at full speed.

I think it will be agreed by all Deputies, though not publicly admitted by the Opposition, that for the first time for many years we as a nation are meeting our liabilities in a proper way. We are shouldering our responsibilities. If some people regard this volume of taxation as harsh they must show us the alternative means by which that taxation can be reduced or the burden of expenditure lessened. The only way in which taxation can be reduced is by reducing expenditure. Has any Deputy on the Opposition Benches made even one suggestion as to how expenditure can be reduced? The inter-Party Government was in office for almost four years. Four Budgets were introduced by that Government and, so far from reducing expenditure, that Government increased it each year.

I know it is very difficult to reduce expenditure. I am not the only member of this House who is also a member of a local authority. I know the difficulties any public representative has to face when trying to cut down expenditure. Social services cannot be cut. The services which provide for the poor, the sick and the destitute cannot be cut. I do not think anybody would suggest they should be. The remuneration of civil servants cannot be cut. They are entitled to fair remuneration. The inter-Party Government, just before they went out of office, went out of their way to provide for substantial increases in the remuneration of a large number of civil servants, but, unfortunately, they did nothing whatever to provide the money to meet that liability.

Nothing is more silly than the suggestions of people like Deputy Davin who, with a sort of infantile mind, talk about the wealth of this country. They say that we have £450,000,000 invested abroad, but they never ask what are the net investments of this nation abroad. The net assets of this country abroad are less than £150,000,000. I think it will be admitted that, in a nation of 3,000,000 people, is less than £50 per head of the population. It is not a huge surplus on which we can rely, sit back and take things easy. Deputy McGilligan, of the inter-Party Government, its very brain if you like on financial and economic matters, admitted that in his Budget statement last year. He called that money, which is invested abroad, a sort of a cushion to protect this country from grave economic crises if our external trade was unbalanced for a considerable period of time, and said it provided a mass of manæuvre which protected our economic system.

Therefore, I think it will be admitted there is not any source upon which this nation can draw. We can no longer be Marshall-aided as we were during the three years when the inter-Party Government were in power. It was no thanks to them that we got that money and no fault of theirs that it was cut off. It was just an international accident, if you like. We cannot rely on drawing upon our external assets, as Deputy Davin has suggested. The only things we have to rely on are the land and industries of the country, and on the ability of our people to develop both our land and our industries to the fullest possible extent. We can do that, and it is a significant thing that, since this Budget was announced, the volume of employment has been steadily increasing. I believe it will continue to increase for the next couple of years, and that on the land and in our manufacturing industries, in our turf-producing industries and in our afforestation and land reclamation schemes, we will have all our surplus population employed, and that it will not be necessary to export from our country our young people in addition to those who, according to a Fine Gael Deputy, were exported during the last three years.

I would like to say a few words on this Bill. In opening, I should like to say that we have had a perfect preview of what we may expect when the by-elections come to be contested. There can be little doubt but that the House is now being used as a rehearsal ground for the period when the hustings will be occupied. However, I suppose we cannot complain about that. I listened to Deputy Davin this evening and was rather amused by the technique which he employed because he assumed, as he always assumes, that everything which flows from Deputy Davin's lips is fact. He is accustomed to give us these statements without any supporting evidence, good, bad or indifferent, and he always appears amazed and surprised if anyone in the House attempts to dispute or question any of the statements which he makes. He seemed to me to have the belief that the members of the Fianna Fáil Government were not united, so to speak, in respect to their decision to bring in this Budget for the imposition of taxes which are set out in it. He asked me questions as to whether I stood for this or for that or for something else. I want to tell the House, and to tell Deputy Davin, that, as a member of the Government which has found it necessary to impose these taxes, over quite a considerable period of time I sat in a committee with my colleagues to examine every possible aspect of the situation with which we were confronted. We did that before any decision was taken in respect to the imposition of any single item contained in the Budget. As far as I am concerned, I am perfectly satisfied that the action which the Government had to take, and which I supported, was a justifiable action if this nation was to be preserved.

It is an extraordinary state of affairs when we have a man of the long standing in this House of Deputy Davin imputing to the members of the Government and to members of the House dishonest statements. As far as the Government are concerned, they are asking the people of this country to meet the requirements which this Budget imposes on them. They are asking them to do that in exactly the same way as they would ask them to meet a crisis or an emergency, if such were to happen: they are asking them to supply them with the ways and means to provide for the protection of the people and the protection of the nation. We are not considering the fact that the pint is going to be a little dearer, or that tobacco is going to be dearer, or that bread, tea and sugar are going to be dearer, but we are asking them to give us the money which will accrue from these impositions in order that this nation may continue to live in the way in which it has lived for several years. I do not think we are asking too much when we ask the people to do that.

When this Government reassumed office we, naturally, had to examine the situation with which we were confronted. It may surprise Deputy Morrissey and Deputy Davin, who have already spoken, to learn that we were satisfied that we were confronted with a very serious situation. Personally, I am not too sure that if we had taken action at that period and had brought in a Supplementary Budget, we would have been acting wrongly. I think that, if we had approached the difficulties with which we were then confronted, and had taken action at that particular time, the people might have more clearly understood the situation then than they do now by reason of the fact that the impositions are now being brought in through the medium of the normal annual Budget.

We were confronted with a serious situation. We did consider that question but we decided on the action which we finally took of meeting the situation when the normal time came to bring in the annual Budget. I would like to assure Deputy Davin that, as far as I am concerned, I am quite prepared to meet my constituents at any time the necessity should arise and to justify the action which I have taken in respect of the Budget, and the action of all my colleagues. I will make clear to the public the reasons why that action was necessary.

It rather amused me to find Deputy Davin issuing threats from the bench from which he was speaking. He tried to make my flesh creep with threats of revelations which he would make to his constituents in the near future. Deputy Morrissey, in the course of his opening remarks, probably having allowed himself to be knocked out of step, so to speak, made a similar statement about revelations which he would make. I appealed to him to make them right here and now, that it was in this House that these serious allegations should be made and not out on the hustings. Deputy Morrissey gave me to understand that he was going to accede to my request but he did not make the slightest reference, after that opening remark, to any of these serious allegations or to the serious revelations which he was about to make but which he did not make.

Deputy Davin insisted on telling us that we were taking our orders from Mr. Butler, the Chancellor of the British Exchequer. He kept on repeating that in the course of his speech, to such an extent that I can only assume that he dreams on that subject now.

Is not that all part of the business of letting the nation down? That is what it is: let the nation down.

He spoke about our having to take our orders from the bankers here and the suggestion was that it was done through the medium of some instructions issued by Mr. Butler. I am pretty certain that Deputy Davin knows the position as well as I know it, perhaps better than I know it, but it does not suit him to use his knowledge in the way it should be used. He misuses it in order to convey to Deputies and to people outside this House that we have taken orders from some outside source. It is a scandalous statement for an Irish representative to make.

It comes very badly from a man who would not hold a rifle to say that about people who looked down the barrels of British rifles.

It is a scandalous statement for any responsible representative to make because I doubt if any decent Deputy would believe for a moment that any member of an Irish Government would be prepared to take orders from anyone but the members of this House and, through the members of this House, the people. That is the attitude, as far as the present Government is concerned, that we have adopted and will continue to act on.

Deputy Davin knows as well as I know that if the increase in the interest rate had not been permitted by this Government, the banks themselves could have raised the rate. They could have raised the interest rate without consulting the Government at all. What actually did happen was that the Minister for Finance ensured that the responsible bank officials would give him a complete and entire explanation of the necessity for the increase in the rate of bank interest and, when he had that complete and entire explanation, permission to raise the rate was accorded. Does not every Deputy who knows anything, good, bad or indifferent, about financial matters, know that if we did not permit the raising of the interest rate the deposits would have left the Irish banks and would, perhaps, have gone to some foreign banks where they would have got that higher interest Would Deputy Davin suggest for a moment that Mr. Butler was suggesting that we should prevent the deposits that lie in our Irish banks from going to England? That is what he is, in fact, suggesting but he did not intend it to be construed in that way. That is the sort of irresponsible statement that we have from Deputy Davin. He gets up and he makes this type of statement without the slightest title of supporting evidence and he makes that statement as if he fully believed what he was saying and tries to convince, and I am sure does convince, quite a number of the people who sit on the benches with him. Those of us who know Deputy Davin over a long number of years know that that is Deputy Davin's technique and that nothing that I or any other member of the House could say will change that technique.

We all know Deputy Davin by this. That is why we regard him in some respects as a rather humorous speaker. When he speaks on these subjects he does cause a certain amount of amusement. I can assure the Deputy that he affords me a considerable amount of amusement. He makes these statements that may, perhaps, be half true and, because they are half true, he can build on them and get some of his colleagues or some of the people outside to believe him. Deputy Morrissey, who is an ex-Minister and who has been in the House perhaps longer than most members, makes a statement alleging that there has been a restriction of credit, due, in the main, of course, to the fact that the Fianna Fáil Government has come into power— that, because they have come into power, there is a complete restriction of credit. What are the facts? Deputy Morrissey, like Deputy Davin, did not make the slightest effort to produce a single tittle of evidence in support of the statement he made.

I will produce posters if you want them.

Deputy Morrissey said there was a restriction of credit by Irish banks. What are the facts? I will give the facts. In 1950, credit to the amount of £104.7 million was afforded by the banks; on 31st December, 1951, the amount had increased to £120.9 million; and on 18th March, 1952, it had further increased to £123.1 million. What is the reason for a responsible Deputy like Deputy Morrissey standing up here and making that allegation, knowing that it was not correct, that it was not true? One would at least expect that Deputy Morrissey, before making a statement of the kind, would acquaint himself with these simple facts. Instead of there being a restriction of credit, there has been a gradual increase of credit.

Deputy Morrissey went on to give himself a clap on the back and I am not going to quarrel with him for that. He pointed to what had been done in the period of the Coalition Government and told us that over 1,000 people had been put into employment during that period. The facts as I know them are that, taking the industrial situation with the agricultural position, there was an aggregate reduction of something like 7,000 people in employment. It is no harm to refresh the minds of members of the House on the fact that during the same period around 30,000 people emigrated from this country. I am not going to say that the Government of the day was responsible for that emigration or took any pleasure in seeing 30,000 of our people leave our shores. It is an unfortunate trend, a trend for which, I am sure, every Party in the House will unite in endeavouring to find a remedy.

The difficulty must be apparent to every one of us, because, over the years, in spite of the efforts made through the establishment of factories, appeals for greater agricultural production and so on, the trend has continued and when we are assailed for being responsible for the increase in the unemployment figures to-day, Deputies should realise that there is no truth in the suggestion that we are any more responsible for it than was the last Government responsible for the reduction of something like 7,000 in the aggregate of employed people. The fact remains that it will be only by efforts to establish national industries and efforts to provide the amenities which we hope will keep the people at home that we will ever succeed in arresting this trend. I do not even know that these efforts would be successful.

I am giving all credit to the previous Government for their efforts to continue the housing programme. It is quite true that the housing programme of the previous Fianna Fáil Government was continued, and continued with energy, but I regret to say that the policy which the Fianna Fáil Government insisted on, of having prepared foundations at all times ready and at the disposal of the various corporations, so that when one scheme was being completed, the foundations were laid for another scheme to follow, was not continued. My information is that, while that housing policy was carried on with energy and industry, the general plan was not followed, with the result that when we came into office we found that we could not proceed at the same rate of production by reason of the fact that these prepared foundations were not available for the continuation of the plan which existed under Fianna Fáil.

Another unfair feature of the debate was the attacks on Independent Deputies which I heard throughout the discussion. I hold no brief for Independent Deputies. Deputy Flanagan, of the Monetary Party or whatever he calls himself, was at one time a member of the Fianna Fáil Party. I have no objection to his attitude in regard to the Fianna Fáil Government or the Fianna Fáil Party. He is perfectly entitled to adopt that attitude, to express his views in the way he expresses them and to act in the way he acts. I want to point out to the House that Deputies opposite were very glad to avail of the services of these Independent Deputies when they were responsible for the Government and all that they are doing, so far as I can see, is objecting to the independent mind acting in an independent manner. It may be that these Independents who are giving us their support at present may decide to change. If they do, that is their business. We have no commitments to them and they have no commitments to us, but we are prepared to assume that they are acting in an honourable way as honourable men and we ought to realise that, like each of us here, they, too, were elected by the Irish people and we ought to respect that fact. The attacks which have been made on some of these Independent Deputies shed no honour on this House or any member of this House. I would like to think that there should be a reconsideration of that situation because it is quite possible that we will have Independents in this House for a considerable time.

Deputy Alderman Alfie Byrne is an Independent. I do not think that anyone on this side of the House ever took exception to Deputy Alderman Alfie Byrne's actions in this House in the manner in which the Opposition are taking exception to the activities of the Independents who are now supporting the Government.

In conclusion, I want to assure Deputy Davin, as I did in the beginning, that I stand over every item in the Budget. I gave consideration with my colleagues over a long period of time to each of these items and I have already given to the House my reason and theirs for the necessity of enforcing these items in the annual Budget. I have also told the House that the people are being asked to pay these extra taxes in order that this nation may continue to survive and that it may not, as would have happened if the attitude of the last Government had been allowed to continue, be brought into a state of mortgage or bankruptcy. That is the reason why I, for one, am prepared to stand over every item in this Budget.

If Marshall Aid, which kept the Coalition Government in the happy position in which it was for three and a half years, had been used in the way it was intended to be used, to provide capital goods instead of luxury goods we would not be in the position in which we are to-day.

If the Minister would not mind, what luxury goods did the inter-Party Government purchase?

There was $148,000,000 of Marshall Aid.

But what were the luxury goods we purchased with them?

Of that vast sum of dollars, $6.9 million was spent on the provision of machinery and equipment that could be regarded as capital goods but the rest was spent upon bringing in corn, tobacco, wheat, flour, petrol, petroleum products, and so on—things that could, if necessary, have been avoided. The production of wheat could have provided a vast amount of employment in this country during the three-and-a-half-year period of the Coalition Government. Instead of providing that means of employment on the land, the Coalition Government decided to bring in wheat to the extent of $46.7 million worth. That is what I would describe as a luxury.

Is wheat a luxury?

It is a luxury in this respect—that it could be produced at home.

It should be produced at home.

It should be produced at home.

A Deputy

It never will.

We will see all about that. There was spent on tobacco $35.7 million.

Where did you get that?

Where did I get it?

What revenue did you get out of this Budget for it?

Naturally, we hope to get revenue from tobacco. Nobody is compelled to smoke tobacco.

That is right.

It is a luxury. Nobody is compelled to smoke tobacco. I hope the people will continue to smoke it so far as I am concerned. I hope they will be patriotic enough to continue to smoke and to understand that in smoking they are helping to do the things which I have enumerated in the course of my remarks. If they do that they will be doing what I would consider to be a patriotic action.

The same thing applies to expenditure on petrol, motor vehicles and any of these other things that could very easily be avoided but the fact of the matter is that out of the $148,000,000 only $6.9 million was spent on providing means by which industries could have been established.

Is the Minister serious about the petrol?

If three or four times that amount had been spent on bringing in machinery and establishing industries, we surely would be providing something for our people, we surely would be providing an income for the nation but they did not do that. I would like to say to the people, through this House, that, if we are left here long enough, we will do what the Coalition Government failed to do by reason of the fact that they could not coalesce.

Can the Minister explain how it was that the Government of which he was previously a member in 1947 sent E. C. A. a different story from the one he has now given?

The first thing I would like to deal with is the resentment the Minister for Defence showed at references from the Opposition side to the fact that this Budget if not actually dictated was certainly influenced by Mr. Butler, the Chancellor of the British Exchequer. I was not one of those who made any of these charges but let me say—let the Minister for Defence try to get around it if he likes —that four significant points emerged round about the 1st April last. The first significant point was a visit to Mr. Butler by the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Industry and Commerce—a visit, by the way, about which we got no explanation in this House other than that our charming Minister for Finance and the Minister for Industry and Commerce went over to see whether Mr. Butler's health was all right. They went over to exchange views.

The second significant point, if Mr. Butler had no influence on the Budget, was the fact that our Minister for Finance sent a letter of encouragement promising support and various other things to the Chancellor of the British Exchequer on the day on which he was reading his Budget speech in the British House of Commons.

The third significant point that emerges is that the date of our Budget was stepped back a full month from the first Wednesday in May, which is the normal time for introducing the Budget, to the first Wednesday in April. Funnily enough, the same thing happened in England.

The fourth and final point is the remarkable similarity between the two Budgets, each of which was determined to put on taxes of a certain kind on the working people, small farmers and such.

I am not one of those who like to be guilty of making charges. I never referred to this matter before but when I find the Minister for Defence waxing wroth about the very natural, very correct, concern of certain Deputies on this side of the House when they see what they fear is a tendency towards dictation from the other side of the water, then I will say that no amount of frowning from the Government Benches will prevent us—me at any rate—from expressing my concern. I do not go around wearing my patriotism on the lapel of my coat for everybody to see, but I would like the Minister and his colleagues in the Government to understand that, while we do not go about flag-wagging, beating drums and telling the people what great patriots we are, we will keep a very close eye on what is happening and, like the Gobán Saor long ago, we will hold what we have got. We will certainly question any trend towards dictatorship from the other side of the water in the management of our affairs. It took us a long time to get where we are to-day—to get the management of our affairs in our own hands—and, having got it, we will hold it.

I would like to point out the deliberate misrepresentation by the Minister for Defence when he said that the inter-Party Government had spent the Marshall Aid loan counterpart fund dollars in a certain way. You would imagine from what the Minister for Defence said that nobody ever purchased leaf tobacco in the United States for dollars before. He mentioned petrol also. Even the most backward person down the country knows that if these things were not consumed in large quantities in this country the whole economy of the State, of the Department of Finance at least, would be upset. Tobacco gives some £22,000,000 in revenue, if I remember the Minister's figures correctly. Petrol also gives a fairly high yield. Petrol and tobacco were both paid for in dollars before ever Marshall Aid came here.

They were not borrowed dollars.

The Minister cannot fool us that way. We know quite well that, if Marshall Aid had never come, there was a certain allocation of dollars to this country from the dollar pool. When water from two different sources is poured into one vessel it is very hard to tell from which source a particular spoonful has come.

There is no doubt where this came from—the Marshall Aid loan.

I know that the Minister does not like his misrepresentations and tricks to be laid bare. Nothing will stand on its own legs without a prop but the truth. If the Minister and his colleagues had not resorted to these tricks and capers in order to hoodwink the people there would be no need to prop them up, no need for them to get hot under the collar when these props are pulled away from under them.

Notwithstanding all this, I have a certain sympathy with the Minister. This sympathy arose when I heard Deputy Cogan calmly supporting certain proposals which the Minister put forward. I thought of three and a half or four years ago when the Deputy was abusing the present Minister for Finance in what I would say was a very nasty manner, a manner with which I would not agree, using innuendoes and insinuations which, with all the Minister's faults, were really unfair to him. I have a certain amount of sympathy with the Minister when I see him having to sit down and listen to this chameleon who has changed his coat so often.

You voted for the Minister in 1943.

No, I did not.

You voted against him then?

I did not. None of my colleagues did either.

You did not vote against him? You sat on the fence.

Deputy Cowan has often sat on the fence.

Deputy Cowan need not mind what I did. I do not want my earlier remarks to be interpreted as an attack by me on the Deputy. I do not believe in attacking any Deputy but I believe in my right to criticise what I think to be wrong actions on the part of any Deputy. Even in the case of a Deputy of my own Party I reserve that right to criticise. The Minister for Defence referred to an attack by Deputy Flanagan on certain Independents. I think that we have the right, I think that any person with any spark of decency has the right to criticise, to shame any Deputy who deliberately goes back on a policy which he has stated and which he has had pasted up in posters on every telegraph pole and blank wall in his constituency. In saying this, if I have done nothing else but at least to scare Deputies who might have the intention of turning their coats, then I have done a certain amount of good and there is no need for the Minister to object to it. I personally take no pleasure in it. In a sense I do not think it is my business except to criticise as a deterrent——

In other words, indulge in dirty filthy abuse as a deterrent.

If other Deputies want to indulge in that they can.

Abuse is different from criticism.

I do not agree that abuse ever gets anywhere. It serves no purpose. I hope that the Deputy is not calling fair criticism for a good purpose abuse. If he does then it is his own business. He is free to do that if he likes. I am not referring to any member of any Party, but if a Deputy goes forward on a set policy which he thinks right and has it posted up in his constituency and if he gets votes from the people by such a policy and then a short time or even a long time after he comes into the House he goes back on that policy, I would say that the Dáil is better without that person. While I do not agree with abuse, I, for one, think that it would be wrong for us calmly to sit here and by our very silence condone such coatturning. When I say that I do not mean any offence. I hope that no Deputy thinks that I am being offensive in that. My reason for speaking is that I took it from the remarks of the Minister for Defence that he held that we should criticise only if he allowed us to do so.

What he said was that it was wrong to suggest that the Minister for Finance was acting under pressure from Mr. Butler in England. He further suggested that it was wrong that that form of criticism should come from a Deputy who was enjoying a pension from Mr. Butler.

Let us have Deputy Blowick. We do not want the Minister's speech annotated.

That is what the Minister for Defence suggested.

That is entirely untrue.

I doubt if it would be fair to the Minister for Defence. He did not add the last part. That is an interpolation of Deputy Cowan's.

And quite untrue, of course.

The Minister should not be misquoted. He is not here to speak for himself and it is very unfair to him.

Nobody minds what Deputy Cowan says, he has twisted himself so much.

Deputy Flanagan said that Deputy Costello should rely on facts, not on speculation.

Cumann na nGaedheal had not gone so far——

Deputy Cowan is constantly interrupting and Deputy Keyes is helping him.

I may make an interjection as well as the rest. I was not the first.

If Deputy Cowan would lead his van away from here we would have peace.

If the conversation has finished I will call upon Deputy Blowick.

Deputy Seán Flanagan referred to Deputy Costello and said that he should rely on facts not on speculation, referring, I presume, to the proposed removal of some of the impositions which this Budget places on the people.

I have only one more remark to make in that connection. The people of this country know very well that when Deputy Costello was Taoiseach he had to remove unjust and unnecessarily harsh impositions which were imposed by the very same man who was Minister for Finance then and also holds that office now. There is no answer to that.

Deputy S. Flanagan referred to the Undeveloped Areas Act. I say to the Deputy that if he would take up the question of the reduction in certain Estimates with his Minister for Finance it would do a lot of good to the areas where the Undeveloped Areas Act cannot operate. I am referring to the cutting down in the Estimates for forestry and for local authority drainage, but I do not mean to dwell too long on this question. I would like to know the reason for all this chiselling down on land reclamation. I do not believe it was done because of lack of money, but because it was out of Deputy Dillon's brain the scheme came. It is second only to the Tennessee Valley authority scheme in the United States as regards land reclamation.

Surely the Deputy is laughing at himself?

The Minister for Finance can afford to smile, being a man who has never known what it is to have been blistered by paying rent and rates on land which has been rendered virtually useless through flooding. I can assure the Minister for Finance that if he talked to four out of five of my neighbours in Mayo, Galway, Donegal, Clare and Kerry, and even in the Midlands, he would not smile at their problems. There are very few counties, due to the geological shape of the country, which are not scourged by flooding.

There has been a lot of talk about emigration. Emigration has increased since the change of Government last June. Another change has come about also, and that is that from now on we will, apparently, have no means of checking the emigration figures owing to the abolition of the travel permit system. I am glad to see that that annoyance has been removed from all those who seek to travel into or out of this country. At the same time I would like if there were some means of knowing exactly how many boys and girls leave this country annually.

How did we know that before travel permits came in?

There was no exact means of knowing but I would say that the estimate was certainly right to within a few hundreds.

We can do the same again.

Not without the system of travel permits.

We did not have them prior to the war.

It was the British who had them.

Emigration had increased. Speaking as one who comes from a county where, unfortunately, emigration has to be prevalent, I would like to put on record that the speeches which were made last August and September by Ministers, particularly the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Finance, were definitely interpreted by many youngsters in many parts of the country in the West of Ireland as a signal to "hop it", and to go while the going was good.

At least the gloomy speeches did not keep them out of England.

That is right. Certainly gloomy speeches from our Ministers accelerated the speed of any of them who had doubts about going. They soon made up their minds during the time we were hearing speeches about a crisis and so on. The complete about-turn which the Minister for Industry and Commerce made when the Dáil assembled on the 1st October, in which he reversed all that and went back on the speeches which he and his colleagues had made, did not stem the outward flow or dispel the gloomy pessimism which they had succeeded in establishing.

I have not the slightest doubt about the fact that most or nearly all of the impositions of this Budget are unnecessary. Deputy Cowan, as short as he is in this House, knows enough, I am sure, about the running of the country to realise that the removal of the subsidies was not called for.

I think it was necessary.

I do not think the Deputy believes that.

I voted for it.

I do not think that the extra taxes on petrol, tobacco and drink were all called for. Some slight adjustment may have been necessary, as there may have been an increase in wages and so forth, but the wholesale succession of sledge-hammer blows which the Minister for Finance delivered to us in his speech were uncalled for. Deputy Cowan knows enough about the finances of the country, and he has got enough information from Deputies on all sides of the House who have tabled parliamentary questions to elicit statistical information of a very valuable kind, particularly since the Budget. Any schoolboy out of the sixth standard who takes a pencil and paper must know that the charge made from this side of the House that a sum of £9,000,000 has been included in the Budget which is not needed for the running of the country in the coming financial year is correct. That must be apparent to everybody.

There is no truth in that.

There is. Let me say to Deputy Cowan that whether or not there is truth in it, there is the very significant fact that the Minister for Finance has not justified it, and has failed to answer that charge. Deputy Cowan, I believe, knows that one of the principal reasons for the imposition of these unnecessary taxes is to deny the people of this country, and when I say the people of this country I am referring to the small farmer and to the working class people, £9,000,000 extra purchasing power. The net effect of this is that there will be £9,000,000 of agricultural produce—our own produce to which nobody but ourselves has a better right—denied to our people.

The Minister had two alternatives. One was to impose taxes, and the other was to sell this country to America for dollars.

The tinkers in their camps on the sides of the road are laughing at that joke. We cannot fool the people with that kind of answer.

Would the Minister for Finance confirm or deny it?

The Minister is a very quiet man these times. He has become so dignified now that he will not even reply to an interruption.

The Nuncio from the Kremlin answers for him now.

Captain Cowan and all other Deputies must be aware of that fact. The people of the country are aware that the tax has been put on in order to help to restore the balance of trade to a great extent by either reducing imports or increasing exports on the other hand. If Deputies look at the speech I made last November when speaking on the Supplies and Services Bill they will see that I warned the Tanáiste, who at the time had been speaking inside and outside the House about increasing our exports, that if increasing our exports meant denying to our people some of the food to which they were entitled or lowering our standard of living I would have something to say about it. That has happened, and Deputy Cowan is well aware of it. I want to see our agricultural and industrial exports exceeding the amount we are importing.

Should we not try our agricultural exports first?

I want to see that happening but, at the same time, I want to see the standard of living which our people have attained, maintained, and I do not want to see fathers and mothers of growing children denying to their families something we are producing at home, let it be a bit of beef, potatoes, butter or milk. For the sake of filthy lucre we are selling these commodities in England and in other countries in order to balance our trade and we are denying to our growing children the first-class food which we are producing in abundance.

You must have departed from Deputy Dillon's policy.

The Fianna Fáil Deputies should not be making a joke of this. I know of one town in my constituency where the mothers of families went down on their knees and cursed that man across there. Now, will the Fianna Fáil Deputies smile?

Will the Deputy suggest the town or the village?

I can give the Deputy the name of the person.

The town or the village in Mayo?

Deputy Cowan should cease interrupting. Since I took the Chair he has continued to interrupt.

I am being interrupted.

The Deputy is not speaking. He should not interrupt in the continuous way he is interrupting.

He was let away with a lying statement.

As far as Deputy Davin is concerned, he is not adding to the decorum of the House.

If what he said goes on the records, I will have something to say about it.

I cannot let Deputy Davin make the statement that Deputy Cowan was let away with a lie.

I say it is a lie.

If the Deputy is charging Deputy Cowan with telling a lie I cannot allow that statement.

Deputy Cowan said——

I do not want to hear what he said. Deputy Davin will withdraw the statement that Deputy Cowan was guilty of a lie.

I will not withdraw it because it is a lie.

The Deputy will withdraw the statement. I cannot allow a Deputy of the House to be charged with telling a lie.

Deputy Cowan knows it.

Deputy Davin will withdraw the statement or leave the House.

Deputy Davin withdrew from the Chamber.

I want to see exports, both agricultural and industrial, increased until we are in the happy position that we will be exporting more than we are importing. I think we are all agreed on that. There has been a growing amount of adverse criticism here on many occasions to the effect that farmers in this country are not producing as much out of the land as they used to, and even in the editorials of certain of our daily papers we read that the farmers are not pulling their weight in the matter of paying taxes—I presume it is income-tax that is in question. However, I will not go into that.

Let us take first the theory that the land of this country is not producing as much as it used to. What is the yardstick by which the return of agricultural production in this country is measured? For the information of Deputy Cowan and Deputy Cogan the principal yardstick is the amount that is exported. It must be apparent to anybody that, particularly since 1948, the amount of home-produced food consumed in this country has increased enormously. My comment on that is, more power to the people of this country; they are able to buy and use their own production. But I will not let any Deputy away with it that the land of this country is not producing as much as it used to or that the farmers, let them be big, middling or small farmers, are not working or producing as much. They are producing more, but we ourselves are consuming much more of our own production, and everybody must be well aware of that.

The second remark I want to make in connection with that is: What has our present Government done to induce the farmers or to assist farmers to increase production? One of the most outstanding things that has happened is that fertilisers, one of the mainstays of our agricultural economy, has been increased from £5 to £9 a ton, and I noticed that Deputy Cogan, who claims to be an Independent representing farmers, did not raise his voice in protest. He never put down a parliamentary question——

It was not increased by Government action.

The facility with which Deputy Cogan can try to clothe himself with sanctity at times just leaves me cold. "It was not due to Government action." That is most interesting, and I am thankful to the Deputy for such a piece of enlightenment. Was it beyond the Government's power to subsidise fertilisers so that farmers could obtain them at a reasonable price? It amounts to this, that you can take up any attitude you like and try to defend it. I was disgusted during the 20 minutes or half-hour that you were speaking.

Deputy Blowick should address the Chair and not be addressing Deputies across the floor of the House.

There was no protest, particularly from Deputy Cogan, when the rate of interest on loans to farmers —I know it is a subject very dear to the Deputy's heart, because he is always advocating loans for farmers— was increased from 4½ to 6 per cent. There was not a word about that.

Who was responsible for that?

Could the Deputy tell me? He is such a mine of information and I am such an absolute blockhead that I do not know anything about these things. Perhaps he would tell me. Whoever is responsible for it, all these things go to reduce or at least to discourage agricultural production in this country. If those people are right who hold that the farmers are not paying income-tax, that they are rolling in wealth, that they are simply living on the fat of the land, why are so many people leaving the land? One remarkable thing emerges out of this criticism, that we never heard such criticism from anybody who ever had anything to do with the land. It is mostly from people who know no more about how those who live on the land make a living than the man in the moon.

Hear, hear!

We hear it from people who would be highly indignant if you suggested that they should interest themselves in a plot or garden they have themselves and whose chief agricultural contribution in the garden is nettles and thistles. Why are so many people flying from the land if the land is such a mine of wealth as it is supposed to be? Why is it that one-half of the year we are crying about the flight from the land; then the Minister for Finance in the springtime comes in here and the Budget is looming ahead; everybody is wondering where the money is going to come from and trying to find a scapegoat. I notice that for the last two or three years the scapegoat is more and more the farmer of this country.

Any farmer whose valuation is above a certain figure receives his full share of attention from the income-tax officials, just as any civil servant, shopkeeper or other business person. There is no escape. These officials will see whether he is running his land at a loss or at a profit or whatever position he is in, and he has just got to pay his bill. My advice to Deputies is this. If you know of any farmer who should be paying income-tax and who is evading it, I do not think you have the right to cloak him.

That is the point that was made from these benches that the farmer should be subjected to the same examination as the salaried man.

That carries the implication that the farmer is not subjected to the same examination. The farmer is just as liable and he is just as amenable to the laws of this country, including the income-tax laws, as any other citizen, and I resent the implication that the farmer by hiding away in a burrow is escaping it or dodging it in some way. He is not. Most of the farmers in this country are leaving the land. One of the problems with which we are faced is that while the older people are content to stay on the land and work it, the sons of these people are not satisfied to do likewise. They will go to the towns and cities in England and in this country because life there is much more attractive. It is cleaner and brighter and the pay is far better. This situation is creating a vacuum which is sucking our young boys and girls away from the land. Although we have a Department at the moment which is there to relieve congestion in certain parts of the country and to settle what is known as the land question, I can easily see in a short time the policy of the Government and the Department being put absolutely into reverse and the problem will be to find people who will live on the land. Any Deputy who will not subscribe to that does not know his rural Ireland whatever about his urban Ireland.

The impositions in this Budget have been dealt with in full and there is nothing to be gained by repeating what was said. Might I ask the Minister, however, if he chooses to sweep away the food subsidies what provision does he intend to make for some classes of the community? Amongst these classes are the small farmers rearing a family who are getting no relief under this Budget. Then there are the old age pensioners. I do not want the Minister to tell me that he is increasing the old age pension by 1/6 because I told him before that that was an insult. Then there are those who are out of employment and genuinely seeking work and cannot get it. What provision will be made for these people and their families? I would not like to think that the Minister sat down calmly and made provision for a lot of heavy imposts in this Budget without considering the consequences to very many sections of the people. What does he propose to do about these people and what provision is being made to relieve the load which will descend on them after the 1st July? These are but a few classes, and each of these classes comprises a very large number of people. I want an answer to these questions. I will not deal at any length with what was the supreme joke of the Budget, and that is calmly to remove the dance tax, which was bringing in a revenue of £140,000, and plank that sum on to the bread and butter of the people.

That was all explained yesterday.

It was, and the people down the country know the explanation. It may be argued that £140,000 is not very much.

The argument was that the all-in wrestlers are taxed and, therefore, the dancers would be.

What about the shame of it? This was a tax on amusement which was not felt by anybody, despite Deputy Cogan's solemn assurance that dancing should be made free and as cheap as possible. That is all right if making provision for cheap dances does not bring hunger to homes where there are young growing children. If that is Deputy Cogan's idea of justice and of distributing the burden of taxation equally on the people, then God forbid that he will ever be a Minister for Finance. It would mean the sounding of the last trumpet for the few remaining people in the country to clear out in time.

I asked the Minister for Finance, when replying to the debate on the General Resolution, to state what has been done with the £26,000,000 worth of dollars which the inter-Party Government left after them and which came into his hands. Great play has been made with the fact that the inter-Party Government accepted Marshall Aid and thereby incurred debt. Let me remind the Minister for Finance and other Deputies who have been a long time in this House that the tail-end of every Budget speech introduced since 1932 was: "This leaves a deficit of so many millions which must be met by borrowing". I challenge any Deputy to produce a Budget from 1932 to 1947 in which the statement was not made by the present Minister in the early days of the Fianna Fáil Administration, later on by his Excellency the President when he was Minister for Finance, and in the years from 1945 to 1947 when Deputy Aiken was Minister for Finance: "This leaves a deficit which must be met by borrowing". These words must be familiar by now to the ears of Deputy Dillon and other Deputies. I have been here since 1943 and that statement was one of the first that I heard. We have been blamed for accepting Marshall Aid. We offer no apology for it. If, according to Fianna Fáil, it was wrong to accept Marshall Aid, why did not the Minister for Finance pay back the £26,000,000 or try to relieve the debt on the country? Will he tell us what has become of it? It is a tidy sum and the people are wondering into what boghole that £26,000,000 has vanished.

One of Deputy Dillon's bog-holes.

When the next general election comes about and the Minister goes down the country the farmers will tell him very soon what they think about Deputy Dillon and what they think about him. The Minister will not be one bit flattered by what they will tell him. The General Resolution was only passed by the narrowest of majorities; I think the voting was 72 to 69. I am no lover of the turmoil of a general election; I do not want one. This Budget, however, has gone back on the 17-point programme of Fianna Fáil, particularly item 15, and on the Minister's own assurance in Rathmines that it was all nonsense to suggest that they would reimpose the taxes on tobacco and drink. In view of the reception that the Budget has got I say that the Government had no authority to impose all these taxes without consulting the people. If we left this mess which we are supposed to have left behind us, why did the Minister and the Taoiseach and his fellow Ministers cloak that mess and not reveal it? Why did you save us? We never asked you to do it. We did not want you to save us. Why did you not reveal it when the financial business——

We did and you denied it.

When the financial business was concluded last summer, why did you not dissolve the Dáil and say: "This crowd have left such and such behind them. In order to set that right, next April or May we will have to introduce a Budget and we are telling you in time what we have discovered—that we will have to remove the subsidies from food and to reimpose the taxes on tobacco, drink and petrol"? Of course the Minister could have kept the remission of the dance tax up his sleeve. Why did not the Taoiseach and the Ministers go before the people in the autumn and tell them about the shocking mess they discovered these inter-Party scoundrels left behind them? Has the Minister become so genial and so generous that he wanted to save our reputation and to let us down lightly?

I say to the Ministers in all seriousness that they have absolutely no authority from either God or the people to introduce such a Budget without consulting the people. I hope we realise that we get all our authority from God in the first instance. I say that you have no authority to introduce such a Budget without consulting the people. At this late hour the correct thing to do, in view of the voting on the General Resolution, is to consult the people about it. If the people say that the present Government are right that will be all right with me, whether I am returned or not, and no matter what position I shall hold after the election.

Before addressing myself to the Finance Bill, I want to protest against your ruling, Sir, in ordering Deputy Davin from the House.

The Deputy has no right to protest against my ruling in this fashion. If he wants to raise the question of my ruling there is a perfectly legitimate method of doing it. He can do it, and I invite him to do it.

Am I not entitled to make my protest?

The Deputy is not entitled to raise the matter of my ruling in this way.

I have mentioned it, anyhow. I am protesting against the ruling.

The Deputy is disputing the instructions of the Chair. The ruling of the Chair may not now be challenged in the House. There is a perfectly regular method of challenging the ruling of the Chair. The Deputy can do that if he wishes.

I want to repeat, for the third time, that I will take whatever steps are necessary with the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, if needs be, to protest against the action taken in respect of a Deputy of this House——

I must ask the Deputy to discontinue the discussion of the ruling of the Chair in this connection. There is a perfectly legitimate way of challenging the ruling of the Chair. The Deputy can have recourse to that method if he wishes, but he cannot challenge my ruling here now.

Very well, I shall do that. During the course of his speech, the Minister for Defence, Deputy Traynor, complained that Deputy Davin made various statements without any verification whatsoever. I did not hear the Minister for Defence or anybody else complain of the totally unwarranted accusations made by Deputy Cogan against Deputy McGilligan, the former Minister for Finance. Among other things, Deputy Cogan accused Deputy McGilligan of corruption, bribery and deceit. He made these charges without any attempt whatsoever to justify his scandalous statements. We have known Deputy Cogan for many years in this House as the very shadowy Minister for Agriculture.

This afternoon he was more in the order of a shadow Minister for Finance. He told the House what he considered should be done and could be done. I do not care what Deputy Cogan does when he is Minister for Finance in that future Government, but when he referred to the weaknesses of democracy he was, in fact, making a case against himself. If he had used the word "infliction" it would have been a very good description of himself. It would be an infliction on any Parliament to have a man of the type of Deputy Cogan come in and make statements of the kind he made this afternoon without any question whatsoever, without being challenged and without making any attempt to prove his accusations against Deputy McGilligan, the former Minister for Finance.

Much has been said about the Budget and the Finance Bill and perhaps there is not very much more which remains to be said. However, everything which has been said against the Budget in this House is but a pale reflex of the indignation which is felt by the people throughout the length and breadth of the country in relation to the infliction of unnecessary extra taxation on them. The Government case, I take it, is that though the Budget is severe it is necessary for the financial health of the people and that the extra taxation would not be imposed if it were not necessary. The people are slow to accept that viewpoint. I do not think the Government have given any satisfactory reasons for this Budget. Though the inter-Party Government was in office for three and a half years, they did not find it necessary to impose additional taxation. In fact, they remitted the taxation which was imposed by the Fianna Fáil Government in their Supplementary Budget of 1947 and gave back to the people the extra money which was being filched from them by the then Fianna Fáil Minister for Finance. In addition to all that, the inter-Party Government increased social services. Employment increased and there was a greater measure of prosperity in the country.

The inter-Party Government made a really constructive effort to put the country on its feet by investing moneys in the land through the Dillon plan for land rehabilitation. At a period when there is a world shortage of food it is obvious that increased agricultural production is essential. The wealth of our country is in our land, and by reinvesting our money in our land and improving it and making it richer, we are providing ourselves with the most effective means of self-support. The question now arises whether or not we are applying the right method now. My own view is that surely the best method is to reinvest our money in our land by way of fertilisers, removing rocks and scrub, and revivifying the soil. The Taoiseach did not like the application of the land rehabilitation scheme to Connemara. He said at the Árd Fheis that it was foolish to take money from the Bank of London for the purpose of removing rocks in Connemara and throwing them into the sea. I do not agree with this point of view. I should like to see bulldozers at work in Connemara, just as in other parts of the country. If it is possible, with the aid of modern machinery, to rescue five, six or ten acres in Connemara for the people who live there, I think that even that small amount of land would mean more to these people than a very good farm in Limerick or elsewhere in Munster. The provision of fertilisers and modern farm machinery would, in my opinion, yield a better result than to leave our money in the Bank of London.

The Taoiseach said that the object of this Budget is to restore the £150,000,000 or the £160,000,000 which was drawn from the Bank of London and invested in this country. He said that that money should not have been withdrawn. That money began to pile up during the emergency when it was not possible for us to obtain goods from Britain in return for what we exported to her. The Taoiseach said that that money must be restored to the Bank of London and that, to do so, we must tighen our belts, eat less and export more. That is the confidence which this Fianna Fáil Government has in the future of this country. No matter where the money might come from, I think that, in our circumstances, there is no better way of using it than to invest it in the land and place our confidence in the soil to produce richer yields of crops. I do not see how it is possible to obtain increased production if our unemployment figure increases. I believe that this Budget will create greater unemployment. There has been an increase of 13,000 in the number of unemployed since this time last year. The rate of emigration has accelerated and I believe that it will intensify.

The Minister for Defence spoke of bank credit restriction this afternoon. Notwithstanding the total overall figures which he quoted, every section of the community is aware that bank credit restriction is taking place. I should be interested to know the actual context to which the overall figures quoted by the Minister actually relate. I brought at least one glaring case of credit restriction to the notice of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and I could bring plenty more. Credit has been restricted and that has resulted in business being restricted. Unemployment is bound to follow. What can we expect from this Budget but greater unemployment and more emigration? From the talk which we have heard from the Government one would think that the bailiffs were standing at the door. Even if they were there, I should let them wait until we were able to provide more employment for our people and in that way increase production. I believe that that would be the way to meet them—and not by putting back into the Bank of London the £150,000,000 or the £160,000,000 which was invested in the soil of this country. I sincerely hope that the workers will not stand for that state of affairs. They have already had too much of it.

The Taoiseach has his own method of making economics. Whenever the cost of living rises, in times of war or peace, he pegs down wages. That is what he did during the emergency. He told me, when I was a member of the Trade Union Congress, that he could not possibly allow the workers to continue to get wage increases, to the exclusion of other people, when there was only a limited supply of goods available on the market. That was his answer. We asked him did he seriously think that he could peg wages down and allow prices to rise until they had gone beyond control— prices had gone up 26 per cent. at that time, and they rose eventually to 100 per cent. or to 150 per cent. above the pre-war level—whilst the people whose earnings he tried to restrict here at home were allowed to go freely to Britain to earn all they could there and send home their earnings to compete against the purchasing power of our people for the limited supplies available on the markets here at home.

The Budget enacted in this Bill is another standstill wages Order. Some increases in wages have taken place, and I notice a statement of the Taoiseach and some other Ministers that wages had caught up with prices. That would seem to be a kind of mortal sin. I believe that wages should always have been kept on the same level as prices, but the position was that wages had to toil slowly up the spiral and seldom succeeded in getting up to the price level. Even before this Budget was introduced, wages had not succeeded in keeping pace with prices, as the figures given by the Trade Union Congress show, and demands were already being mooted by various unions for further wage increases.

Now, provided with this further incentive, the workers feel that substantial wage increases are absolutely necessary if they are to maintain the standard of living they have at present. I, for one, sincerely hope that they are not going to allow the standard of living which they at present enjoy to be reduced at the dictation of any Minister for Finance. I hope that they will assert their right to that standard of living which, after all, is only a minimum standard. I see no justification for the Minister's plea that we should eat less and export more simply to achieve the extreme glorification of restoring our foreign credit to the figure at which it stood prior to the advent of the inter-Party Government. It is alleged against that Government that they were guilty of the terrible crime of trying to repatriate some of that credit for the purpose of using it here at home. All I regret is that they did not take more of it home for the same purpose.

I protest against this Budget. I think it is an unnecessary and vicious Budget and that it will have the effect of making more difficult the problem of finding money for internal development. We are told that there is a capital development programme of £35,000,000 which must be got from the current savings of the people. How are we going to get it? You have increased the cost of everything—food, tobacco and cigarettes—the people are in the habit of using and these increases must inevitably reduce the purchasing power of the working-class community. The reduction in that purchasing power has been already felt in the textile trade and it will be felt in future in an ever-widening circle. Robbing our people of their purchasing power means that we are interfering with the development of industry internally and at the same time, by creating unemployment, preventing our people producing goods for export. I repeat that this is an unnecessary and vicious Budget, and I feel sure that when an appeal is made to the people they will give their answer on it most effectively.

I have been listening for the last two days to the most dishonest statements that have ever been contributed to a debate in this House since I became a member.

Mr. O'Higgins

The Deputy must not have been at the two-day meeting of the Fianna Fáil Party.

Do not talk of a two-day meeting of the Fine Gael Party.

I want to put it to the House: Would any political Party in this or any other country try to impose extra taxation unless it was necessary? I do not suppose that in any country in the world any political Party would propose increased taxation unless it was necessary. The Minister, just the same as I and every other member of the Party, has to go before the people.

Mr. O'Higgins

You are very reluctant to do it.

We have to answer too to the people for any stand we have taken in the past. It would be a very popular thing for us as a Party to bring in a dishonest Budget, such as the previous Government introduced before they left office. I ask anybody to consider the implications of a Budget such as this for our Party as a whole, particularly at a time like this when our Party is not as strong as it was some years ago. Ordinary human frailty at a time like that would suggest the doing of the dishonest thing, to bring in a Budget, dictated by expediency, that would be popular with everybody, or at least with the majority of voters in our respective constituencies. As a national Party, however, we felt that we should do the honest thing, no matter how unpopular it was, even if we were to fall by the wayside. The history of our Party shows that we have always tried to do the honest thing.

It is all very well to say that this is a vicious and a bad Budget but we were forced into the position of having to introduce this Budget. There was no alternative open to us if we were to have any regard for the economic stability of the country and for the welfare of future generations. Were we to introduce a more lenient Budget, we would be failing in what we have always believed, as a Party in this House, that we are here to represent the interests of all sections of our people, irrespective of class or creed, and to do the best for the people at all times. Hence, the Minister for Finance had to do the unpopular thing to save the country. I heard Deputy Costello, the former Taoiseach, and a man who is definitely an eminent lawyer, get up here and try to prove that the Minister for Finance was looking for more money than he required. Surely Deputy Costello does not imagine that the people of Ireland are so dull as to believe that the Minister for Finance would ask for a halfpenny more than he requires? We, as a Party, are doubly sure that the Minister would not ask for one halfpenny more than his advisers tell him is necessary. It was saddening to hear a man, who occupied the responsible position of Taoiseach at one time, taking up the time of this House on two occasions trying to put over on the Dáil the most dishonest misrepresentation to which it has had to listen, since I became a member of this House. If Deputy Costello had said: "You can tax this, that or the other and can put down certain social services and we can rig the ship of State some other way," then Deputy Costello would have been doing the honest thing. Instead, we have had this play-acting of his, trying to show that he could cut down £1,000,000 every minute, or words to that effect.

We have had to do very unpopular things in the national interest during our term of office. We have had to put up with misrepresentation of a gross and grave character. We found the Opposition at that period playing the game of another country and we are finding it so again to-day. I sat for a long time last night listening to one Deputy over there, who was making actually a Fianna Fáil speech, though he did not know it. He was talking about a way in which imports had increased during the second six months of last year. Of course imports increased.

Surely Deputies opposite did not expect that when we went in in June we would be able to set wheat and reap it in August? Imports increased because of the policy of the inter-Party Government in letting production go down. As a result of that policy, we found we had to do unpopular things. It is a popular thing for the Opposition to try to work up feelings against this Party and against this Government. It is the easiest thing in the world to do.

Mr. O'Higgins

It is quite easy.

But when you have to face it from a practical viewpoint, you expect the ex-Ministers of the inter-Party Government to be able to make some constructive contribution. Instead, they carry out the same tactics as they found successful before in putting over on some of the people gross misrepresentation of the facts. May I ask some members of the Opposition why they have so often here taunted us with the Central Bank Report? Why should the independent members of the Central Bank make any report but an honest one on the finances of the country? They are definitely independent men, each and every one of them, men of outstanding integrity. The whole substance of their report was that we should produce more, export more and import less. It is the same headline as that adopted by all successive nations, not alone this one, that want to carry on with success. They know they must produce more, export more and import less. That is the kernel of the economic outlook of our nearest neighbouring nations and of other successful countries throughout the world. A system of barter under trade agreements has been adopted, where one country agrees to supply the other with necessities. I do not mind very much what the Fine Gael people say or do, as they are capable of saying and doing anything.

The Deputy may rest assured we will not worry very much about what he says or does.

I always thought the Labour Party had some political philosophy and some definite outlook, but I changed my mind on that long ago.

Since you were in Cumann na nGaedheal.

I find that, instead of being a Labour Party now, they are just the tail of Fine Gael, with no policy. They say they represent the workers, and we hear a good deal about that from time to time. They have held big meetings and they have tried to tell us what we are, while they are the archangels who would do everything possible. I hope the people of Ireland will realise that this Budget was forced upon us by the dishonesty of the inter-Party Government during the last three years—and two years especially—in not facing up to the facts. By their gross mismanagement of affairs of State, they have allowed this country to slip down economically to what she is to-day. Those who had the responsibility of Government, who should have tried to do their best for the country, mismanaged it instead. They adopted a method of political expediency, putting things off from day to day, and that has left us in the way we are now.

I was sitting on the other benches over there years ago, when Deputy Lemass, now Minister for Industry and Commerce, got up and said to the new inter-Party Government: "We have given you over this country in a sound financial condition"—and there was no adverse report from the Central Bank then—"and we hope that we will get the country over from you in the same condition" We have not got it over in that condition. The only thing we got was: "Put them out; we have the cure for all ills." They have the same dishonest cure as they had in previous years.

Production has gone down. We tried to build up production in the factories and in agriculture, but that trend was gradually killed by the policy of the inter-Party Government. They are trying to put it over on the country that we are doing something we need not do. I hope that the people realise that no Government will put as much as one halfpenny increased taxation unless that increase is necessary. The Minister for Finance has a heavy burden to carry. I hold he is doing the only thing that an honourable Minister could do under the circumstances, and I wish him luck in his job.

At the outset I would like to make it quite clear that I do not intend to speak on high finance. High finance is something away and beyond me. In making that statement, I make no apology to anyone inasmuch as I know that that is a subject which has baffled in the past, and is to-day baffling some of the most reputable financiers in the world. I propose to speak to-night on the realities of life and the effects of them upon the people as a whole.

I was very pleased that the Minister for Finance in his Budget statement gave pride of place to the agricultural industry. The days in which agriculture was not admitted to be our most important industry here have gone. Both sides now recognise that there is only one industry which can save the country, and that is agriculture.

We all know that it is the policy of every Government to increase exports and reduce imports. From that point of view I think we ought to be a very happy people, because ours is one country which can do just that. In every farmyard up and down the country, be it great or small, and in every plot attached to a labourer's cottage, work goes on. The labourer's wife, who feeds two pigs or 20 or 30 fowl, plays her part in building up the agricultural industry.

What are we doing for agriculture? Are we giving it the care and attention we should give it? In any industry that is in need of expansion the board of directors of the particular concern will go out and look for the ways and means of expanding that industry. For years the best land in County Clare was left under water, under scrub and under rocks. It was useless from a production point of view, and it was left in that condition until Deputy James Dillon, as Minister for Agriculture, launched the land rehabilitation project and brought many acres back into production.

The industry is, of course, hampered from the point of view of an insufficiency of manual labour. The youth of our country has left it and successive Governments cannot escape their responsibility in that direction. One of the very few relaxations enjoyed in the rural areas heretofore was a game of cards in a neighbour's house followed by a dance. It was all very fine to tax dancing in the big cities and the towns but unfortunately rural amusements were not always exempt. Indeed, the time came when these places were subjected to police supervision almost as if illicit stills were being operated in them. People were charged and brought into court. The result has been that the young people are fleeing from the rural areas seeking a livelihood and entertainment elsewhere.

The two greatest evils from which we suffer at the present time are emigration and unemployment. These are so closely knit together that the solution of one must inevitably lead to a solution of the other. No Government has kept itself free from blame in regard to these twin evils and every Government must take some responsibility in regard to emigration in particular. It was our ancestors' misfortune 100 years ago to have the emigrant ship calling at our ports. That happened, as we know, under an alien régime. Having secured our freedom and independence, surely we should now be able to devise some system to keep our youth at home.

I have heard a good deal here about external assets. It is a sad reflection that whilst our money is being loaned to outsiders we have no money at home to provide employment. I cannot understand why that money was not repatriated for the purpose of establishing industries here to provide employment for our people. The money that is to-day helping to keep the wheels of English industry turning provides a lure to the bone and sinew of our community, the youth of our country, to cross the water and earn money there that they cannot earn at home.

It has puzzled me for some considerable time as to how we can afford to give a grant of so much per week in order to enable a man to walk around with his hands in his pockets. I cannot understand how we can pay him just to remain idle. Surely we ought to be able to find money somewhere to put him into productive employment. Instead of leaving him as a burden on the people, he should be an asset to the people and to his country.

As regards this Budget, it has been freely admitted, on all sides of the House, to be a hard and a harsh one. I cannot understand, in view of that, how Deputies can get up, even against the dictates of their consciences, and not only vote for it but, as has happened here this evening, advise us on this side to sit down and on no account to criticise it. I am not going to mention any names or to criticise the statements of any speaker. I do not believe in that. My idea is that the man in the street and the people in the country are the best critics of it, and that there can be no doubt that, when the time comes, as it will come some time, they will voice their opinions of this Budget in the silence and the secrecy of the ballot box.

As I have said, it is a hard and a harsh Budget. That is true of it even before it reaches its climax in July. I submit that it imposes great and grave hardships on two sections of our community. I shall take, first, the labouring man, I am not going, as someone across the House has said, to shed crocodile tears, but I am really genuine when I say that the Budget is going to deprive the labouring man of what was to him a beverage and not, on many occasions, a luxury. Even here in the city it is well known that the pint was to him a beverage. It is depriving him of that, but worse than that, it is depriving the publicans of the country of their right to live in it and to carry on a decent respectable business. No matter what may be thought of publicans, I want to say that they are decent people. They must be decent, because they are governed more harshly by the law than any other section of the community. They have to pay licence duty, they cannot open their doors until a certain hour in the morning and, whether they like it or not, they must close them at a certain hour at night. If they fail to obey the law they are brought into court and fined. Speaking from knowledge that I have of two big towns which are situate not far from where I live, I am aware that the sales of the publicans in those towns have already gone down by 50 per cent. and that before the end of the year many of them will have to put up the shutters, never to be taken down again.

I am putting these matters before the House in truth and honesty, and I make those statements without fear of contradiction from any side of the House. In conclusion, I want to remind the House of a saying which, I think, is applicable to the initiators of this Budget, and it is that those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad.

I have not very much to say on this Budget. I should like, however, to refer to some of the speeches that were made by the Opposition. Like my friend who has just sat down, I claim to have some knowledge of agriculture. I come from an area in North Tipperary where tillage is carried on on a very extensive scale. I should like to remind Deputy Murphy that during the three years the Coalition Government were in office the number of workers on the land decreased by about 75,000.

I wonder why that should happen? We have heard Labour Deputies complain about the great numbers of unemployed but it is only since this Budget was introduced, or some time before it, that we had the Labour Party, when dealing with this question of unemployment, complaining in this House as to why so much land was allowed to go out of tillage, thereby causing unemployment. Deputy Davin this evening asked how could Fianna Fáil Deputies now go down the country and say: "Up, Dev! Trust him". I can tell Deputy Davin that in more serious times than the present the people who supported Fianna Fáil shouted "Up, Dev!".

Deputy Blowick referred to agriculture and to the question of subsidies for fertilisers. I have been chairman of the county committee of agriculture in North Tipperary, and I know that during the three and a half years the Coalition were in office several requests were made to Deputy Dillon, when he was Minister for Agriculture, to subsidise fertilisers. These requests were supported by all the political Parties on the committee. In view of all the money that was available then, is it not surprising that we did not get some of it to improve our land and put it into good condition? The Marshall Aid moneys were being spent at that time and now we have to foot the bill. Instead of spending some of it in the way of subsidies for fertilisers I understand that $77,000,000 was spent on the wheat and corn which the last Government imported and which we could have, and should have, produced in our own country. We had the labour then to do it.

Deputy Murphy referred to the falling-off in the licensed trade throughout the country. I live fairly near a town and I can say that the licensed trade is not in half as bad a way as some people represent it to be. I do not like the attitude of the Opposition in coming in here and speaking about a general election. I think they should give a little more credit to Fianna Fáil for facing up to the position which confronted them. I know that this Budget is not any great honour to us. It may be severe and it certainly was not brought in for vote-catching purposes. I think that its introduction is a wise thing. As regards our independence, many of our people gave their lives for the freedom we enjoy to-day and they certainly made far greater sacrifices than the sacrifices which we are asking some of our people to make now.

I would appeal to the Deputies on the Opposition Benches to reconsider their attitude on this Budget. I know they will not agree with me because, as regards a lot of them, they seem to think that their only chance is an election. I wonder is it the good of the country they are thinking about when they speak about an election or some good which they think will come to themselves? My opinion is that it is for themselves they are fretting.

Reference has been made to emigration. Deputy Keyes mentioned it a short time ago. Emigration increased from 10,000 in 1947 to 40,000 in 1950. Well, I suppose, as other speakers have said, no Government can take very much responsibility for that. As far as I am concerned myself, I would like to say this, that if we have to face the country, then I, like other Deputies on this side, will be willing to go down if the voice of the people is against me. I would say that the Minister for Finance has shown great courage in putting this Budget before the people. He has taken that responsibility on himself. He has to depend on the votes of working people to a far greater extent than I have. He represents a city constituency. My belief is that the people will agree with him, and will accept this Budget in the spirit of good faith which he has shown in bringing it forward.

I want to protest against the introduction of the hardest Budget that has ever been placed before the people of this country. It will react most unfavourably on those sections of our people who are the hardest workers we have—I mean the small farmers and the workers generally throughout the country, the people who need most a cup of tea, a loaf of bread, a smoke of tobacco and, no matter what we may say against it, a pint of stout. Last August, a pint of stout was 10d. After that barley was slashed to the tune of 9/- a barrel. To-day the pint is 1/2 in the country, 1/3 in the city, an increase of 40 per cent. Deputies will admit that the worker in city, town or country, who is engaged in an exhausting occupation, needs a drink of stout and a loaf of bread. This Budget will undoubtedly react on the small farmers. Methods down the country to-day have changed. To-day we have not the same manpower as we had heretofore. In what way will the Budget react on the tillage contractors and the farmer who is fortunate enough to have a tractor, in the price of petrol? The price of petrol has increased enormously. Costs of production have increased. The price of stout to-day is 10/- a gallon. I cannot understand the mentality of any Minister or Government that thinks new milk is worth only 1/3 or 1/4 a gallon and that a gallon of Guinness's stout is worth 10/-.

In what way will the increase in the cost of everything that is needed for local institutions react on public bodies, urban councils and county councils? Prices have reached enormous heights. In what way will it react on the sorely tried taxpayer?

I was amazed at some of the speeches that came from the Government Benches. I am amazed at any businessman trying to persuade the people that this is a good Budget. Sales have decreased in most cases by 50 per cent. Then they talk about bad housekeeping. The Fianna Fáil Budget, in 1951, was £109,000,000. In 1947 the Budget was £60,000,000. These are the people that speak about bad housekeeping.

It was rather strange to hear a Deputy of the calibre of Deputy Dr. Browne speaking about agriculture and commenting on it and telling the people that farmers hold their land only in trust. I wonder did he ever hear much about the battering-ram or the crowbar brigade. I wonder did he ever read much about the great fight that Michael Davitt, John E. Redmond and honest John Dillon had to put up for the tenant farmers.

The Deputy is getting away from the Finance Bill slightly.

I had to say that much. I am sure there is not one farmer in Deputy Dr. Browne's constituency, and I would be almost sure that he never did a day's work on the land.

Better not come down as far as the dishonest Dillon.

As a farmer, I feel pained and ashamed by the speeches made by some of the Independent Deputies. Deputy Cogan represents some type of farmers, but I know that if they are of the calibre of some of the farmers we have in the South, he will be in a sorry position when he seeks re-election.

I appeal to the Minister, even at this late hour, to change the face of that Budget. There is no doubt in the world that that can be done. In perfect honesty, I appeal to him to change it.

If this Finance Bill is voted on to-night and is carried in the House, we take it that all the new taxes as stated in the Budget will be imposed on the community. It was rather interesting to listen to Government speakers and to discover how easily they have taken this serious matter of new taxation. Deputy after Deputy on the Government Benches tried to convey to us and even to the country that they are courageous and that the Minister for Finance is courageous. The Deputy who last spoke on the Government side of the House even told us that the Minister had to secure his election to this House through the votes of the workers in the City of Dublin and suggested that he was a courageous man to take on himself responsibility for the imposition of this extra taxation on various items. What kind of courage is it when a Minister of State imposes this taxation within a short time of being elected to this House, having contributed in no small way towards the election of his Party by various promises, each of them in turn clearly indicating to the people and to his constituents that neither he nor his Party had any intention of reimposing the taxes which were repealed when the inter-Party Government were elected in February, 1948, the penal duties which were imposed by him and his colleagues when they were the Government in the fall of 1947 and which brought about their defeat in this House?

Every Deputy, every candidate of that Party on the other side of the House, throughout the length and breadth of this country indicated in no small way that they had no intention of introducing these taxes, these penal duties, on which the people gave a ver dict as to whether they should be imposed or not, by putting the Government out in 1948. Notwithstanding the fact that he made these promises to the people during his election campaign and in his manifesto on the eve of the election, we find, inside of nine months, that he not only reimposes them but imposes much more severe taxation.

What can the public think of any responsible person in public life, a man who has been about 30 years a member of Parliament and 16 or 17 years a Minister of State, head of various Departments, including the Department of Finance, who, without consideration, goes back on everything he said and now asks this House to endorse his Budget and the Financial Resolutions? His excuse is that the inter-Party Government left behind them a mess much greater than they anticipated. The Minister is continually repeating that. He said it in his Budget statement and again in introducing this Bill.

He made a long speech and tried to convince the public that the inter-Party Government left behind them a very serious mess. If that is so, why has not the Government done either of two things? When they discovered this serious mess, when they realised that they had to go back on everything they said, why did they not face the country some months ago, and put before the country these facts and secure a mandate? If they did not do that, why did they not set up a tribunal and impeach the ex-Ministers for misconduct? There were two ways of achieving their objective—go to the country, the highest tribunal of all, and seek a mandate, or set up a tribunal and impeach the former Ministers for misconduct or failure in their duty if what they said, that the former Minister did not balance the Budget, that he manipulated the figures, that he did everything but the right thing during his years in office, was true. The Minister has failed to reply to some of the ex-Ministers, who stated very categorically that what he was saying was not true, that he was not giving a true version of the situation and that, if returned to office to-morrow morning, they would be able to remit all these taxes and still carry on the affairs of the country, still carry on the industrial development and everything that goes with it.

You cannot have your loaf and eat it. You should have done one or the other of these two things, and I am entitled to ask the Minister, to ask the head of the Government and every Deputy who has spoken or who may speak in this debate, what is preventing them from facing the electorate? If you have the position so clear, why are you afraid to present it to the electorate? Why are you afraid to seek the verdict of the people, the highest tribunal of all, who put us here and can remove us out of this House? We have no say in the matter of how long we are going to be here. Why not face the people and seek a mandate from them? It is unfair and unjust, to say the least of it, to impose the burdens which this Budget imposes.

In all honesty, in all decency and in all fairness, do you think the ordinary man down the country can afford to pay 2/6 for a packet of cigarettes and a box of matches? How is the ordinary man down the country, who may be existing on only a very small income— perhaps working on the roads for three or four months out of the 12 —to get a packet of cigarettes or a pipeful of tobacco or a pint of beer? How is that man to feed his family? How is he to find the extra 17/9 for a ten-stone bag of flour? How is he to rear his kiddies until the end of August when he will go digging potatoes? What have they to live on? Have you ever been to rural Ireland, to the mountainy districts, the rural parts that are congested, where they have no potatoes, where all the seed is in the soil and they have to wait for the potatoes to grow and mature? What are those people to live on? Ask yourself what does the housewife think of this Budget. I know what she thinks of it, apart from politics. I know she thinks that the Government which is about to impose these taxes and to withdraw the subsidies is irresponsible and has given no consideration to the effects which their actions will have. Your own best supporters are saying it.

This is not a political issue; it is much more important than a political issue, because you are taking away their means of livelihood, the food that should be on their tables for the maintenance of their families and putting a barrier between them and the necessaries of life. Are you going to increase their income? Surely you will not suggest that the Social Welfare Bill which will become law in another month or two will provide it? How many down the country are insured workers and how many will benefit from it? They are few and far between and well you know it—much better than I know it, because you have been much longer in public life than I have and, as a married man, the father of a family, you should recognise the seriousness of the situation.

Is the Deputy addressing the Chair?

I am addressing the Minister through you, Sir, and asking him to appreciate the seriousness of the situation. This is not a political issue; it is a matter of life and death, a matter of the people going hungry and in need, due to your putting a barrier between their income and the requirements of life.

I cannot understand how Deputies from the constituency I represent— Deputy S. Flanagan, Deputy Moran and others—can stand up here and seek to make a case for this Budget, because they have no case to make. If the inter-Party Government are guilty, you have a way out, but you have no authority whatever to take it upon yourself to impose these burdens on the make-believe that chaos exists in the financial position of this country and that you feel bound to clear it up. If that mess exists, you should have no fear of going to the country, but we have reason to doubt that it does exist. You are only using this as a smokescreen to cover up the intentions you are trying to put into effect. You are deliberately trying to punish the people because they had the audacity to remove a Government in power for 16 years and warning them that, if they dare do it again, that will be the penalty imposed on them every time you and your Party get the chance.

That is the only conclusion I can come to as to the reason for the imposition of this taxation. You are now making them pay for what you consider the sins of the past, the removal of you and your Party from office three or four years ago. We know that, like a general in the field, you are playing for time and hoping that this Parliament will survive for another seven or eight months, so that, at the end of this financial year, you may be in a position, as no doubt you will, because you have a surplus at your disposal, to remit to a great extent some of these penal duties, and can then go to the people as the saviour of the nation, as the one and only Minister who could bring relief, crying crocodile tears because you had to impose this undue burden in the past year, but reminding the people that if they dared put Fianna Fáil out of office, the same burdens will be imposed upon them again in order to clear up the mess that may be brought about by a change of Government.

This is a political trick, as I said in the Budget debate, and surely it is unfair that the ordinary working man and woman, whether in rural Ireland or the City of Dublin, should have to pay for this political trick, for this piece of political manoeuvring, the objective of which is the consolidation of the Party in power. That is the only objective sought to be achieved, and the people have to pay the penalty, because if the Minister had any other explanation or any other way out, he would have no hesitation in facing the country; but he cannot substantiate or prove one iota of what he said with regard to the mess created by the inter-Party Government. I ask the Minister—Deputy Blowick asked him also and he failed to reply—what did they do with the £22,000,000 or £26,000,000 spent since they took office? They talked about the inter-Party Government going on a spree, about spendthrifts and about wasters. Let the Minister tell us where they wasted the money. On what was it wasted? Was it wasted on housing, on hospitalisation, on drainage, on afforestation, on any of the schemes which they undertook during their three years and four months in office? If these schemes are genuine and essential—and they must be since the Minister has retained them and is prepared to finance them to keep them going—then on what did they waste the money? The Minister has got advisers to procure all the information. The information is on the files. The Minister can get them and read them, and thus discover how they spent this money and how they wasted it. It is up to the Minister to let the House know.

Did Deputy Blowick waste money when he bought thousands and thousands of bales of wire to carry on afforestation in an emergency? Some years ago, I remember addressing a question to the Minister for Lands in regard to afforestation. The answer I got was that they could not go ahead with afforestation because they had not the wire and yet Deputy Moran comes along and says that Deputy Blowick spent thousands of pounds on procuring wire. Deputy Blowick anticipated an emergency and knew that in an emergency wire could not be got from abroad. He knew we would want that wire here in order to continue the programme as he was continuing it then. By having the wire that programme would not be hampered and men would not be thrown out of work. He secured machinery and all the necessary essentials to keep that work going if an emergency arose.

Would the Minister disagree with that? Does the Minister think that was waste of money? Why mislead the people about this spending spree and money wasting? What did the Minister do with the £28,000,000. We are entitled to know how he managed to spend £28,000,000 in nine months. The inter-Party Government spent £14,000,000 in 1½ years. There is the comparison. We want to know what the Minister did with the £28,000,000 and what achievements have been carried out.

We did nothing with it except pay your debts. That is where the £28,000,000 went to.

I do not believe that.

I do. I know.

That is a schoolboy's answer.

Mr. O'Higgins

The people do not believe it either. Would the Minister like to test the people?

A Deputy

It is a fairy tale.

If those debts existed there was the alternative of impeaching the Minister for Finance or of facing the electorate. The people would give their answer.

The Deputy should address the Chair instead of addressing the Minister.

I want an explanation from the Minister. I notice that the Irish Press referred to Deputy Dillon and myself as two peculiar Deputies because we opposed the removal of the tax on the dance halls many years ago. Nobody takes much notice of the Irish Press. Nobody takes any notice of the gentleman who writes that piece of political commentary. I think he should have remained in Fleet Street—an upstart who comes into this House in a short few months to criticise Deputies and try to misrepresent them to the people.

That is most unfair.

I think it is most unfair when he puts his pen to paper, too.

The Deputy should go back to Hyde Park and preach to peculiar people.

You would not be allowed into it. You are a Rathmines rowdy and you should go up there where they will tell you what they think about you.

The Deputy must withdraw that expression.

May I ask what expression?

The Deputy used the expression "a Rathmines rowdy." He will withdraw that expression.

Yes, Sir, if you say so. I withdraw that since it is your ruling. I would like to describe the Minister in much better terms and much more suitable terms if parliamentary procedure permitted me to do so, but I will get other opportunities elsewhere of doing so. What the Minister is is known to everybody outside this House. The Minister is not able to defend himself inside or outside of this House without blackguarding. If I and Deputy Dillon are referred to as being peculiar Deputies because we opposed the withdrawal of taxes on the dance halls some years ago, let me say that we felt we were right then and we are right now.

I believe entertainment is one of the things that should be taxed particularly at a time when we are imposing a tax on essential commodities — bread, butter, tea, sugar, tobacco and beer.

Which does the Minister consider the more humane and the more Christian, to impose a tax on the essentials of life or to impose a tax on entertainment that is carried on to extremes in every city, town and village in Ireland? Some of these people who run these dance halls and ballrooms in the City of Dublin are not Irishmen at all. They are foreigners. The remission of tax is not passed on to the dance fans or to those who patronise these ballrooms. No remission in that way is being granted. The people still pay the same fee to attend entertainment and dances.

The Minister thinks it is much more humane and Christian to impose a tax on the poor housewife with seven or eight children and permit the gentlemen in the City of Dublin, who are living on the backs of these people, to be relieved from tax and from responsibility to the State. He is letting the poor of Rathmines, Dublin, and every town in Ireland pay for these gentlemen and keep them enjoying themselves by keeping these ballrooms going.

We know why they are being relieved. It is because they are good subscribers to the Minister's Party funds. That is why they are being relieved from tax. They are a necessity. They are essential because they keep the Party fund flowing and they are always ready whenever they are required. Therefore, it is much better to help them than help the poor widows and orphans.

They then come along with a miserable 1/6 for the old age pensioner. You would not give that to a child of three years to go out on a message for you. Sweets, value 1/6 now, could be bought for 2d. when I was a boy. Beer, butter, tea and sugar are being increased. They are increasing the price of every requirement that he needs in order to sustain himself. I would like to know how the Minister can stand over that. The Minister may get up and make a long speech defending the Budget, but if he were so strong in his defence of this Budget the place where he would defend it would be on a public platform. We are asking the Minister to do that. Let the Minister not hesitate to do that.

We have no more guarantee of coming back than the Minister has, but we do say that we are opposed to this Budget. Nobody has a right to tax except the people, and the people should be given an opportunity of deciding whether it should be imposed or not. Side by side with this extra taxation, we find the cost of living mounting day in, day out. The Minister's Party were to reduce the cost of living. Every single item to be purchased in the shops has increased—cheese, beans, fats, etc. As a matter of fact, you cannot get a bag of flour at the present moment, as it is being hoarded, and people are waiting for the subsidies to be withdrawn. They are waiting to make the biggest profit. That is the position down the country at the present moment. Is the Minister for Finance aware of that?

Side by side with that, you have unemployment and emigration. You have one thing worse than another so far as the country is concerned. No explanation, no policy to deal with them, no future but a black future, hard work, less to eat, more production—that is the demand and that is the cry.

Many of the Estimates have been slashed, and that indicates less money to spend, less money for development. We have no guarantee that schemes such as housing, forestry or hospitalisation will continue. We are told that they depend on the public spirit of the people in lending money. In fact, the Budget speech was a clear indication that the Minister does not wish the people to assist; in fact, the Budget speech and the speeches of members of the Government during the past six months have been a clear indication to the people not to provide the Government with the necessary capital. The people have no confidence in the present Government. I have no doubt that if a loan were floated to-morrow morning it would not be filled. The sooner the Government face the country, and a Government are elected in which the people would have confidence and which they would be willing to assist, the better for the future of the country.

Deputies in the Fianna Fáil back benches are well aware of that, and the speeches of most of them have been an apology, a request for general absolution for standing behind the Minister and his colleagues in support of this harsh, cruel and unnecessary Budget. The peculiar thing about it is that any Deputy who criticises the Budget or the conduct of the Minister is severely criticised in turn by the organ which represents the Minister and his Party. We are described as "pro-British". All kinds of references are made to us, and we are called names because we are not in line with the Minister's outlook regarding taxation. We do not care how that newspaper describes us. Deputies on this side of the House are just as good patriots and nationalists as Deputies on the other side. In fact, if there were a comparison, I think that they could wear the hat.

I do not see what is wrong in Deputies pointing out the faults in the Budget or where the money could be found if it were essential. There are two or three ways in which the money can be found as an alternative to the present taxes—the reimposition of the tax on dance halls, the introduction of an excess profits tax, and many other untapped sources. I wonder why the Minister did not tap these sources. I suppose that it was the easiest way out; he did not want to be bothered examining these sources; he did not want to put an extra burden on his advisers in finding out how these sources could be tapped to provide this revenue which is essential, according to himself.

If anybody is unpatriotic, if anybody is working for the destruction of this State, if anybody is trying to drive the people out of Ireland, it is the Minister and his Party, not this side of the House. During the years the inter-Party Government were in office sound schemes were in operation; you had employment and decent wages. The Government met by giving increased wages to workers whatever little increase in the cost of living took place—and I say "little" with emphasis—in comparison with the increase which has taken place during the last nine months. Some classes of workers got an increase two or three times during those three years but what increases have been given to workers during the last nine months although the cost of living has increased far more in those nine months than it did during the three years the inter-Party Government were in power? Throughout rural Ireland then and in the City of Dublin it was a rare thing to find men seeking work. Everyone who wished to work was working. There are a number of people, of course, who will always be on the dole—people who do not want to work—but they are few and far between, and those who were anxious to obtain employment could find a variety of work. It was difficult, in fact, to get workers in the Cities of Dublin and Cork and other large towns. It was the same in rural Ireland with regard to drainage and housing. Very few houses were erected in the towns of my constituency over the past 50 years but there is not a town in the constituencies of North or South Mayo where there are not ten or 20 houses approaching completion, and many schemes were completed during the time of the inter-Party Government. We did more in the field of housing and hospitalisation than was done by all other Governments put together. Now there is very little housing development and hundreds of men are unemployed. Joiners and craftsmen are on the dole. They are emigrating to England and leaving their wives and families behind them.

The Minister cannot content himself in allowing the Dáil to go into recess for the summer leaving the country in the state it is in to-day, leaving the people to bear this burden of taxation. I believe that the Minister has yet a degree of sanity, a degree of responsibility, and I do not believe that he would want the House to adjourn for three months leaving the country in this state. I believe that the Minister should, in fairness to himself, to his Party, to the Dáil, and to the country in particular, seek the dissolution of the Dáil at the earliest possible moment. He should not ask us to pass the Finance Bill to-night or to-morrow as it is most unreasonable.

I would ask the back benchers of the Fianna Fáil Party to bring pressure to bear on the Government to dissolve the Dáil and seek the decision of the electorate. This is serious. I know people who, when the food subsidies are withdrawn, will find themselves in a very severe plight and will find it difficult to continue. The general opinion is that, unless something else is done, what has been promised, namely, the 1/6 in the old age pensions and the increase in family allowances, will not be sufficient to offset the increase in the cost of living, never mind the extra taxation. If there was no extra taxation, no withdrawal of food subsidies, this House would be seeking an increase in old age pensions, in family allowances and in assistance. To try to convey to the House and to the country that the increase in family allowances and the 1/6 on the old age pension will, to a great extent, offset the burden imposed by these taxes is to fool no one but yourself, and you are fooling yourself very much.

Most of what has been said here to-day has been said in the Budget debate. I might say a repetition. That repetition might not have taken place if the Minister was more reasonable in the introduction of the Finance Bill, but the Minister again tried to get a little mud to stick on the ex-Ministers and tried to hold them responsible for his mismanagement over the past nine months, for his failure to do what he promised the people he would do. He is now trying to throw the blame over on the inter-Party Government. If that is so, the inter-Party Government and the ex-Ministers in that Government are quite prepared to take up the challenge, not in this House, but in the right place. The Minister should have no hesitation in meeting that challenge if he is so sure of his figures, so sure of what he is trying to make the people believe over the last five or six months.

It is quite natural that he would try to present a bad picture to the House on the occasion of the presentation of his Budget, because he had to justify the campaign that was carried out in the early part of last summer. The present Government had to justify their conduct on the public platforms during the early part of last summer and late autumn. Therefore in the introduction of the Budget it is only natural that the Minister would adopt the attitude he has adopted in order to try to convince the people that what the present Government were saying then was true and that this was the result of it. Of course, the people know well it was not true; this House knows well it is not true; the Minister himself knows it is not true, but he feels if he keeps on saying it is he will eventually get the people to believe it. If he thinks that he is making a mistake. My colleagues and I compose a small farmers' organisation who represent the tenant farmers. We are a small group of Deputies but we claim to speak for a section of the people who are unorganised and who, to a degree, get very little consideration from this Government or any Government. They have sent us here to raise our voices on their behalf and to express their opinions. As a member of that Party I invite the Minister to do the one and only right thing: to seek a dissolution of the House and go to the country. He will then get the mandate which he expected to get but the mandate will be very unfavourable as regards this Budget.

Mr. O'Higgins

The speech on the Finance Bill, as Deputy Cafferky said, must inevitably cover much of the discussion which we had on the Budget. In listening to the few Fianna Fáil Deputies who displayed courage in taking part in this debate I was interested in noticing the change of tune which their speeches now evidence. When the Budget was first introduced a few, very few, Fianna Fáil Deputies did endeavour to defend the Budget by praising the courage behind it, and all the rest, and the debate on the Budget was a debate along those particular lines.

It seems clear to me, however, from listening to Fianna Fáil Deputies, that they realise that even that particular excuse has not gone down in the country. They realise now—certain of their constituents must have told them —that there is no case possible that can be made for this Budget. This Budget is unjustified and unnecessary, and no excuse, good, bad or indifferent, will be accepted by the people for it. I know that Fianna Fáil Deputies in the last three or four weeks have had that information conveyed to them by their constituents in no uncertain way. I know the Minister has had it conveyed to him at Fianna Fáil meetings. The fact is that the Government, if it can be called a Government, realises that it is representative in no way of public opinion here, that it is following a policy that is disliked intensely by the people of this country. In those circumstances, it is perhaps fortunate that one can get from the present Taoiseach a description of what a Government course of conduct should be in a situation of that kind. I remember—and Deputies will recollect —the present Taoiseach as Deputy de Valera speaking in this House in July, 1951, after the then Government suffered a minor parliamentary defeat on the Estimate for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, a minor defeat which gave the present Minister an opportunity for much parliamentary eloquence and tilting at parliamentary windmills.

On a point of order, I think the Deputy is giving the wrong reference there.

Mr. O'Higgins

I see the Deputy remembers it well. I am glad for the Deputy's correction; it was in 1949 as the Deputy says. At column 464, Volume 117 of the Official Debates of the 8th July, 1949, the present Taoiseach said:—

"I state, and I believe there is no contradicting it, that those who formed the Government of to-day have not got the authority of the people for doing so. They have got the authority of forming it by virtue of having a majority vote here... It is bad for the country that there should be a Government of that sort in times like the present.... If there was any courage, any real desire to govern in accordance with democratic principles in the hearts of the Government at the present time they would go to the country."

That was the present Taoiseach discussing a snap defeat by the former Government in relation to one of the particular Estimates. He had a lot more to say. At column 461 of the same volume he said, in relation to his views on what a Government led by him would be:

"We did not want to be in office on sufferance. We wanted to be in a position in which we would be able to do the work of the country properly and be able to say that we were the Government by the declared will of the people, tested in the most democratic way; that when we spoke we spoke for the country as a whole. That is not the position to-day."

And I adopt that last sentence. That is not the position to-day. We have in Ireland a Government that has no claim, right, title or interest to speak for the people of this country. We have not in office to-day a Government elected by the people of this country. We have, unfortunately, a Government in office by sufferance, by the sufferance of Deputies like Deputy Cogan, by the sufferance of a diverse tail composed of the flotsam and jetsam of political life. That is the type of Government that is in office to-day and, in those circumstances, the words used by the present Taoiseach three years ago are apt and appropriate to be repeated here to-day. It is proper that his words and his description should be applied to the present political situation and that the Government should adopt his suggestion, once their mandate is doubted, to seek it whence only a mandate can come, from the people of the country.

I mentioned that in relation to the political aspect of the financial proposals contained in the Finance Bill. They are being proposed, as I say, by a Government that is only a passing, or a caretaker Government. The present Minister for Finance will not occupy that office in six months' time, and the situation as regards the caretaker Government is that the people are marking time for a general election. There is no good in blinking facts. It is no use for Fianna Fáil Deputies to be coming in here and blustering about what brave men they all are. There is one way of showing political courage. If this Budget is a courageous Budget, let it be carried courageously before the people of this country. If it is courageous, necessary and believed in sincerely, there is a clear political duty to put it before the people. If that is not done, the most that can be said for the Budget is that it is a courageous Budget, composed by timid men. These facts are known and apparent to all of us.

Apart from the political aspect of the Budget, I want to call the attention of the House to other matters of perhaps more lasting effect which must concern any discussion on this Budget. The political situation can be cured. It will be cured very, very shortly, but permanent damage will, in my opinion, be done to the economic condition and future of the country by the proposals and theories now being put into operation by the Minister for Finance. All of us will recollect, and even the Independent or quasi-Independent Deputies who support the Government will recollect, the horror, amazement and shock which every public person experienced six or eight months ago when the Central Bank Report was published.

We were shocked not so much by the facts and figures there dealt with, because they were available to all of us and all of us knew them, but by the inferences drawn as to the financial and economic position of the country. We were all shocked on all sides of the House when we found an Irish corporation, or banking authority, suggesting as a course of conduct for this State certain matters which appeared to all of us to be completely unjustified and completely unwarranted. When the editor of the Irish Press quite foolishly published an editorial praising the Central Bank Report — of course the managing director got his knuckles rapped for it — it appeared for a while as if the Government were going to accept his proposals. However, a motion of no confidence was tabled by the Leader of the Opposition here in the House and discussed on the 31st October last. There can be no gainsaying the fact that the Tánaiste, who introduced the Second Reading of the Supplies and Services Bill around which the discussion centred, realising the then political situation, determined that the only safe political course to adopt was to discard publicly the Central Bank Report and every recommendation contained in it. Speaking from the seat where the Minister for Finance now sits, he did it in the most vehement, determined and vigorous speech. He held up the Central Bank Report to the Deputies of this House and he said: “This is foreign to us. We will have nothing to do with it. Let nobody think that we will.” All of us heard that. The friendly commentators — friendly to the Government but not to the Irish people — on political matters in the Irish Press praised the Tánaiste the following morning for having pricked the Opposition bubble and deflated the Opposition by publicly disowning the Central Bank Report. That is only six months ago, and surely six months is not such a long time that Governments, Tánaistes or nations can afford to forget major statements of policy.

There is no doubt about it that any financial or economic policy that affects the bread and butter of the ordinary people, their liberty to spend and their liberty to store or consume goods is a matter of major policy. It is unbelievable that anyone should think that we in this House are likely to forget that major statement of policy made by the Tánaiste on the 31st of October last. We will not, but it is well that we should realise what was then in issue and what the Central Bank Report was proposing as the cure for the economic and financial difficulties of the country as the banking authorities saw them.

I only want to deal here with matters very briefly, and just as headings. The first recommendation in the report related to the public works programme and to drainage schemes, such as land reclamation work, rural electrification, hospitalisation, housing and the various capital projects that in recent years had become the boast of the people of this country. The Central Bank Report dealt with the public works programme, as follows, at paragraph 17 of its report:—

"The public works programme differs from some other elements of State expenditure in being largely discretionary, thereby affording special opportunity for the exercise of a policy of contraction or expansion as economic circumstances may require. It is commonly accepted as an expedient for coping with problems of depression, especially unemployment."

The report, having referred to the different kinds of schemes, goes on to say:—

"... The general character of much of these works has been such as to place a strain on the balance of payments in several respects. They have, for example, entailed the immediate import of materials and equipment. They have, through their labour content, created a demand for imported as well as other consumer goods; and they do not promise a return which would be an effective substitute in the balance of payments for the extern income previously arising from the resources which they have absorbed...."

We have the authors of that report looking at a situation which they saw before a public works programme had been initiated. They look at a situation in which we had external assets yielding us an extern income of sterling credits built up in England. They look at the reduction of those external assets by the importation here of the raw materials necessary for a public works programme, machinery, and all the rest of it. Then they look at the results—wages going into the pockets of workers who before the schemes came into operation had only a few pence and had to exist on a few shillings dole. These workers have now sufficient money to buy more goods and more food and then they become an additional charge on the amount of consumer goods to be consumed in the country. The report says:—

"These workers have through their labour content created a demand for imported as well as for consumer goods."

So that the philisophy contained in that report means this: That it is sound from the economic and financial position of the country if all the workers starve, because by starving they will be demanding less and less of our consumer goods, and that is all to the good according to the philosophy that inspires these sentences.

Now the report goes on in dealing with public works to suggest that the Government should take steps to curtail the programme. Accordingly, one of the first criticisms that we made last October of the Central Bank Report was that without investigation, without examination, and for the least worthy of reasons, it was suggesting as a financial policy for a State suffering from emigration and a low standard of living that the public works programme should be discontinued. We felt that that was wrong, that it was utterly unjustified in the particular circumstances facing the country. No doubt we were all consoled when the Tánaiste rejected that recommendation as he rejected the other recommendations in the report.

Six months later, however, we find that the present Minister for Finance, who is obsessed by the balance of payments problem, who thinks that that is something serious from the country's point of view, is undoubtedly going to curtail rigorously the public works programme in the coming months. There is no doubt that he is going to do it. He has tendered a capital Budget to the country without any suggestion as to how it is to be balanced.

He has told the people that our investment programme of £35,000,000, to meet which he hopes to raise about half, can only be carried out if the people lend him the difference, and he does it in such a way that he knows the money will not be forthcoming. Accordingly, the Minister, I suspect, will think that, in some six or eight months, he will be justified in announcing here the abandonment of the capital investment programme, because the Minister clearly shares the views which inspired the Central Bank Report.

The Minister clearly believes that a public works programme which puts more wages in the pockets of the workers, which creates in them additional purchasing power, which entitles them to demand goods in shops, will result in this country importing, in the coming months, goods that the Minister would like to see us not importing. Accordingly, the only way that can be stopped is by ensuring that the workers do not get work, because, if they do not work, they do not get wages, and if they do not get wages they will not have the purchasing power to cause a balance of payments headache to the Minister. The Budget carries out that particular recommendation of the Central Bank Report. It does not do it openly. It does not do it courageously. It does it by default, by not holding out any hope of the necessary capital to carry out the capital investment programme this year.

Secondly, in the Central Bank Report there was a recommendation in relation to subsidies. On page 14, paragraph 18, the gentlemen who composed this report made the following recommendation in relation to subsidies, and it would be well if Fianna Fáil back benchers, those Deputies who nauseated us from time to time by their crocodile tears about the poor and the oppressed through the years, would listen carefully to the Central Bank's views of subsidies:—

"Subsidies are not only a heavy burden on the Budget but also constitute a disguised addition to purchasing power as the money saved through getting the subsidised article at a reduced price is set free for other expenditure."

The unfortunate worker who finds that he can get 1 lb. of butter at 10d. less than the economic price has 10d. over to buy some little thing for the house.

That 10d. with other tenpences might go to buy clothes or shoes or stockings for the children. The operation of the subsidies unfortunately, according to the authors of this report, sets free in his pocket money for other expenditure. It goes on to say:—

"They can have a twofold adverse effect on the balance of payments by promoting excessive demand for the subsidised articles whether imported or domestic but exportable and by facilitating additional demand for unsubsidised articles.

Therefore, according to the Central Bank Report, there was the unfortunate effect of subsidies operating on the balance of payments by releasing purchasing power. Subsidies allowed a permanent, consistent demand by the general body of the people for goods that were not subsidised and thereby reacted against the balance of payments.

It is very easy to cloak these particular ideas in language such as is used in the Central Bank report. Poor Fianna Fáil Deputies like Deputy Killilea do not understand and they swallow that sort of nonsense. What that means is that Deputy Killilea's constituents, the people who voted for him and other Fianna Fáil Deputies, have no right to have anything in their house except bread and butter, according to the gentlemen who inspired this particular philosophy. It is a wrong thing that workers should have any free money after they have busied themselves with the daily problem of living.

That second recommendation in the Central Bank Report was also, of course, repudiated entirely by the Tánaiste as something foreign to Fianna Fáil policy. Of course, we on this side of the House naturally accepted what he said. We expected him to say that in relation to subsidies because his Government had been formed, amongst other things, to maintain the policy of food subsidies. They had so declared on the 5th June last year. They had committed themselves and their fellow travellers to follow that particular policy and we were not surprised that the Tánaiste should reject any idea of interfering with subsidies.

The third recommendation in the Central Bank Report has been discussed so often that I shall not spend any time on it. The report in page 16 recommends rigórous restriction of bank credit for non-essential and less urgent purposes and says that the restriction is now imperative if the banks are to be in a position to afford reasonable accommodation in those directions which are most in accord with the public interest. The facts, generally, in relation to these important major recommendations in the Central Bank Report are that, despite the repudiation by the Tánaiste last October, we are now presented with a Budget which swallows the Central Bank Report completely—a Budget which abolishes subsidies, knocks the capital investment works programme on the head, restricts credit and endeavours to call in purchasing power from the hands of the ordinary people not merely by the withdrawal of subsidies but also by taxation, and so forth. In this Budget there is a complete acceptance of principles which the Tánaiste assured us only some months ago Fianna Fáil would not accept.

Subsidies which have been in existence for five years are about to be withdrawn—subsidies which have been taken into consideration in relation to all existing wage agreements, and subsidies which are an essential prop of the present wage level in the country. That step might be all right if one could be assured that no bar will be placed in the path of workers in their endeavour to restore the particular loss caused by the withdrawal of subsidies. That step might be all right if wage increases would be approved of and encouraged by the Government. However, I have no doubt whatsoever that that particular course will be resisted very strongly by the Government and by those who advise the Government, because on page 15 of the Central Bank Report the matter of wage increases is dealt with in great detail. According to the report, in September of last year — the time it was published — wages were as high as the country could afford: wage increases had reached a stage where if they went any higher, there was a danger of inflation. The recommendation to the Government was that every step should be taken to ensure that further wage increases should not take place because of the possible result in relation to inflation.

The Government have accepted three out of four major recommendations made by the Central Bank Report. The only one they have not accepted —because the question has not yet arisen — is the recommendation in relation to wage increases. I have no doubt that, having gone three-quarters of the road, the Government will not shy at going the entire way, and that in the coming months we will hear plausible excuses to prevent workers, organised and unorganised, from endeavouring to adjust the purchasing content of their wages. That is the position in which we find this House in relation to the Central Bank Report and in relation to its acceptance by the Government. It forces people to the conclusion that in recent month — since last June—by reason of the political instability of the Government and certain defects that arise from its formation, there has been a policy of drift in the country. We have had no leadership for the past ten months. No clear policy was being followed. There has been no clear mobilisation of power and effort behind a known programme. We have had none of the things which were so clearly noticeable during the three and a half years of inter-Party Government when the people, whether they agreed or disagreed with Government policy, knew clearly what was being aimed at.

That is the funniest thing yet.

Mr. O'Higgins

I am very glad the Minister for Finance has come back, after his little bit of trouble, to join in these discussions. Whenever I hear the Minister for Finance laugh, I know that he is sitting on a tack. The fact is that, when the inter-Party Government were in office, whether the present Minister agreed or disagreed with their policy, at least he knew what that policy was. He knew well that the former Government was, over a number of years, deliberately endeavouring to repatriate a certain amount of our external assets and to put them to work at home. That was known policy. The Minister called it "frittering away our external credits", and so forth. Whatever way he might describe it, the policy was known to the people and could be discussed up and down the country. It was a policy which could be seen at work. Whenever the people saw houses built in Cavan, the Midlands, Cork and elsewhere they knew that, in the bricks, mortar and cement which made up these houses, there was a transfer of a certain amount of our external assets.

At the last general election the present Minister for Posts and Telegraphs went down to Mullingar, where he saw the grand housing scheme which his colleague, the present Minister for Local Government, had the honour of opening shortly after the Fianna Fáil Government came into office last June. He knew that some of our external assets were providing houses for his constituents. The policy of the inter-Party Government was a clear and definite policy. I realise that people criticised it. The two Ministers now in the House—the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs —bitterly opposed it. They have now translated their opposition into practice. Can the Minister for Finance or the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs tell us what financial policy was operated during the past ten months? Is any clear indication of Government policy being given now to the people of this country? There was political mud-slinging and violent abuse by the Minister for Finance—a most extraordinary way of introducing a Budget statement—but there is no policy, programme or leadership.

We know well that in the past ten months leadership in financial and economic matters has not been directed from the Government of this country. We know that leadership has left Government buildings. A disedifying curtain-raiser to the introduction of the Budget was the fact that the Minister for Finance and the Tánaiste went across to London for a conference with the British Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was disedifying that some three or four weeks before the introduction of the Budget the Minister for Finance went across to London and engaged in discussions with the British Chancellor of the Exchequer and came back here unprepared to make any statement— good, bad or indifferent—on the nature of the discussions. Apparently leadership in these matters is no longer a matter of concern to the Irish Government. I believe it, and I think many people believe it, because this Government has not the ability which the inter-Party Government had—certainly not in relation to many matters of major policy.

I have said that in many economic and financial matters there is no evidence of a clear programme or a clear policy. That statement applies also to other aspects of the life of this country. Agriculture has suffered considerably in the past ten months because, again, the drive, initiative and programme has disappeared.

In relation to agriculture, whether Fianna Fáil agreed or disagreed with the former Minister for Agriculture, they knew what he was doing and the farmers knew what his policy was. They might criticise him and say that he was wrong but his was a clear, known policy. For the last ten months all that has gone. No one knows what the Fianna Fáil agricultural policy is. One week they are for compulsory tillage and the next week they are against it. One week they are for a higher price for barley and the next week they are for cutting the price down. The result is that there is no farmer who has the slightest glimmer of hope with regard to agriculture. All that has gone since Fianna Fáil reassumed office.

Then, of course, the crowning insult in relation to the Budget was the magnificent gesture of ministerial genercsity to the dance-hall proprietors. They alone amongst the Irish people are not in danger, are not hurt or are not faced with any problem of inflation. They alone amongst the Irish people have not too much money in their pockets and are not going to be asked to contribute anything towards redressing the adverse balance of payments. They are the lucky few who can afford to walk unharmed in the vicinity of the financial land-mine that threatens to engulf all the rest of us. By the generosity of the Minister they are given a sum of £140,000 back into their pockets to be spent by them on shoes for their children, on food for their houses, on wines for themselves, and on purchasing, if they so desire, imported goods to swell the adverse balance of trade. That is all a matter on which the people have their own particular views.

I suppose it is understandable, if not praiseworthy, that that particular section should be able to buy a tax concession by their political support of the Fianna Fáil Party in the last election. The sum involved is only £140,000. The Minister tried to make the case that it was hard to collect but £140,000 had been collected last year and the tax had been retained for a number of years. If the concession had not been given, the revenue from that tax would have been sufficient to increase every I.R.A. pension in the country. How many Fianna Fáil Deputies were elected because of appeals to I.R.A. pensioners throughout the country? Will they now go back and tell these pensioners that they have given this concession of £140,000 to Fianna Fáil's political followers and that had they not given this concession, the proceeds of that tax would have enabled them to increase every I.R.A. pension throughout the country. That is a matter which I hope Fianna Fáil Deputies will consider when marking time before the election comes about.

There is only one other point that I want to mention. It concerns a matter which for a long time I have been looking for an opportunity to discuss in this House. I am sorry that the Taoiseach is not here because during the summer months the Taoiseach went around the country on a new crusade, a crusade about emigration. When the Minister for Finance began to preach woe and disaster in financial matters, with the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and the Minister for Industry and Commerce backing him up, the Taoiseach started on the other line. Emigration was so great in the country, we were told, that we were bleeding to death and across in England our emigrants were apparently going on gladly to the most terrible material and moral dangers. That particular campaign initiated by the Taoiseach was based on figures which were in my opinion I say here and now prepared for the particular purpose of his argument. They never had been published and never had been vouched. But whatever case the Taoiseach might have made in relation to emigration, we were entitled to expect from him a policy which would help to reduce, to curb and to stop emigration. We were entitled to expect from his speeches last summer that the members of his Government, if they were doing their job, would have been preparing an economic policy which would enable this country to end emigration, to provide employment and a decent standard of living for the people here at home. The only justification for his attacks on people who, from necessity, had to emigrate from this country could be that he was going to provide for them here at home employment and a decent standard of living. It is remarkable that now, a couple of months later, we should find the Government putting a policy into operation which is directly aimed at increasing unemployment and emigration. It cannot be controverted that the direct result of the policy contained in this Budget will be to reduce purchasing power, consequent on the abolition of subsidies. Business will suffer and further unemployment will come about. That will mean that there will be a sharp increase in emigration.

With that background, it is hard for people to understand, remembering all the speeches delivered by the Taoiseach in the last six months, why we should now find the Government proposing this policy as one the country should accept. It merely proves what I said a few moments ago, that there has been for the last ten months a complete absence of leadership and of policy in the Government. There is no planned policy. Policy is being decided from day to day. The Central Bank Report is being rejected one minute and accepted the next. There is a tug-of-war going on between the Minister for Finance and the Tánaiste in relation to these matters. Policy is being decided by different Ministers or groups of Ministers for themselves. I know that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs is in the same camp as the Minister for Finance but there is no clear plan and no effort to define any clear policy. The country, accordingly, has suffered considerably in the last ten months. It may mean, as sometimes happens in regard to such matters, that a little Purgatory may prepare us for better things. It may have been good that the country should have had experience of Fianna Fáil in a Coalition in recent months.

It may have been a good thing that those who criticised the inter-Party policy and programme so vehemently, who shouted themselves hoarse about margarine going up a farthing and who waxed eloquent when meat went up in 1948 by 1d. a lb., should now try to justify their actions and words in the past in relation to their conduct in the last ten months. I have no doubt that the people of the country will benefit considerably by the example of the last ten months or so. I am referring to this Government as if it were practically out of office. I believe it is. I believe the days of this Government's life in office are numbered. No matter what the political plan may be in Fianna Fáil headquarters and no matter what the political hope may be among the Fianna Fáil back-benchers, no Government that is so unrepresentative of public opinion can expect to remain in office.

There are certain vacancies that will have to be filled here very shortly. I do not know whether those will be fought or not, but I am quite certain of this, the situation in the country is such that there is a demand now for the removal of the present Government from office, for the restoration of the bold, courageous programme and policy which the inter-Party Government was putting into operation, for the restoration of the leadership in economic and financial matters which, in the last four years, 1948 to 1951, gave to this country and the people who live in it the one bit of confidence and hope for the future which had been lacking for many years before. There is a demand for a return to that, and if anyone doubts that there is a simple way of testing what I am saying.

This is the third financial debate we have had since I became a Deputy less than 12 months ago. It appears to me that the cause of all this discussion here and outside is due to one simple fact, that the present Government believe in the policy of leaving our external assets where they are instead of utilising them for the benefit and privilege of the people of Ireland. May I quote the Minister in his Budget speech, April 2nd, Volume 130, No. 8, column 1125:—

"Now, at this point, let me stress that, even if sterling were freely convertible into dollars and other currencies, the present position of our balance of payments would force us to take the necessary corrective action. That action would be taken solely in our own interest, to maintain and safeguard the purchasing power of our own currency and to conserve our external reserves. The corrective action is rendered doubly necessary and doubly urgent, however, by reason of the present payments difficulties of the sterling area as a whole."

May I quote him further, from the same volume, column 1114: —

"The fact is that if the living standards of farmers and the community generally are to be sustained, it can only be on the basis of a greatly expanded agricultural and industrial output."

Surely, if we are going to give a contribution to the sterling area — and nobody in his sane senses will deny that it is just as vital for us who live and trade in the sterling area to maintain it — our best contribution would be not to leave this country undeveloped and hoard those assets, leaving them blocked up in British investments, but rather to bring them back to our own country and to endeavour, as the Minister himself has stated here, to increase our agricultural production?

I propose to show the House as best I can that this financial policy of the present administration will have a diametrically opposite effect to that which is envisaged in the Minister's Budget statement. I will deal, first of all, with subsidies. The removal of the subsidies will inflict not only on the individual but on every public institution in every county from the 1st July extensive extra charges for catering. I mix with hospital people as part of my job. The matrons of hospitals, of county homes, of every public institution, are wondering how they are going to balance their budgets. Is it not only common sense that they must turn to the source of revenue to look for more money? Up go the rates — that is No. 1 charge on the agricultural community. Deputies on all sides of the House will agree that the rates are high enough in every county and every urban district already.

Petrol has been increased by 4d. per gallon. It is always easy to put an extra tax on petrol—you are supposed to be taxing the rich, and you will get away with it on that account. When you increase the tax on petrol, you increase the charges for transport on every public institution. You are not putting increased charges, as is suggested here, only on the luxury limousines. Some Deputies have referred to "the mink coats of Merrion Square" driving about in their cars. You are putting the tax on the tractors of the farmers, and so putting up their charges and the cost of agricultural production. The Minister was asked in the last debate we had here, or by parliamentary question—I forget which —if he was going to remove that extra 4d. in the case of the farmer doing agricultural work—as his predecessor, Deputy McGilligan, removed it in his last Bulget—and the answer was "No"; the charge is to be left on them.

Again, what about the employment in garages? Are not the daily newspapers full of letters from people who say they intend to lay up their cars this summer or use them only about 50 per cent. of what they did before What about the bus fares? Of course, it does not matter to Córas Iompair Éireann, as they can get all the money they want, but again the load comes back on us. The bus fares go up, we have to pay the piper, and Córas Iompair Éireann come to us and we have to give them the money. Apart from that, the individual has to pay all the time. That is restricting the expenditure of money, as it is throwing it into the pool of Córas Iompair Éireann, which is a non-profitmaking company.

The taxes on beer, stout and whiskey were put on for the purpose of collecting revenue. They will defeat the very object for which they were imposed. Only the other day, in my constituency, a wholesaler in stout, who sells through out the country to the public houses here, there and everywhere, was asked by them to send out his lorry and take back the stout still unsold. The consumption of alcohol has gone down. From the point of view of those who believe in rabid teetotalism that may be a good thing. We have been told that this Finance Bill is devised for the purpose of getting in more money to balance a Budget which is supposed to show a deficiency. Will it do so? All the indications so far throughout the country show that as far as the bars are concerned, both public and private, it will not do so.

I think it was the Minister for Defence who made a reference to there not being any lack of credit; he quoted figures here which he said showed the banks had lent more money in the last 12 months than they had in previous years. I think if one analyses the position one will find that the banks are owed more money at the present time than they were ever owed at any time in the past. That is due to the fact that the shopkeepers who laid in stocks in anticipation of those stocks being consumed by the ordinary public still have the stocks sitting on their shelves; and those stocks will continue to sit on the shelves until such time as the Government adopts a policy of expansion, a policy of circulating money and encouraging trade so that the consuming public will be in a position to buy these stocks. Until that time that money will remain owing to the banks.

It is not only the shopkeepers who owe money to the banks. People who have drawn on their reserves, and more than their reserves, owe money to the banks; these people have mortgaged their reserves to try to make ends meet. It is nonsense to say that there is no restriction of credit. I am sure every Deputy has had the same experience in his constituency as I have had in mine. I have had constituents coming to me and asking me to put in a word for them with the bank. Some of them have excellent security. I do not want to quote particular cases, naturally, since these matters are private, but I have gone on several occasions with people who had good financial propositions to offer and who wanted some money to set up in business. Businesses are continually changing hands in the country. It is an inexorable law of nature that people grow old. When people get old they retire from business and very often when that time comes employees who have worked with them for years and who are anxious to set up in a business of their own wish to buy their employer's property. Very often these employees have considerable sums of money saved.

There is one case in my constituency which will illustrate my point. This particular individual required a certain sum from the bank. He had saved £1,000. He had been in the same employment for ten years and had saved that money; that was not a bad effort by any means. He had a life insurance policy for £600 and his wife was insured for £500. He wanted £3,000 altogether. He wanted the bank to advance him something over £1,000 and a little bit more to buy in stock. He found that could not be done because of credit restriction. I asked the officials in the bank what the reason was and I was told that there was so much money loaned out to buy in stock—stock that in the normal course of trade would have been consumed but had not been —that they had no money left to loan to anybody. Let me be fair: they also said that another reason was that more farm machinery was being bought than ever before. That is a good sign, I admit, and I would like to give Fianna Fáil a little bit of hope. So much for credit restriction.

We are told that the income-tax section in this Finance Bill will benefit the majority of income-tax payers. Naturally we must deal with the Finance Bill as a whole. We assume that this income-tax is imposed for the same purpose for which the other taxes are imposed; that is to say, for the purpose of getting in money to balance this mythical deficit about which the Government and the Fianna Fáil Party have been so vocal since they took office.

I cannot see how any family, irrespective of the number of children, will be any better off in the over-all situation created by this Finance Bill than it was before. Any allowances that may be given are offset by the increased charges that will have to be met. It is not only food which will be affected. There are other incidental expenses, such as education. As a result of this cruel and unjust taxation everything will go up in price. School fees are bound to go up. The cost of university education will be increased. I fail to see how the Minister can claim that these income-tax reliefs will offset the position for anybody. The Exchequer may benefit by getting in more money so that the Government can continue its dark, deep financial game. We are all wondering where it will end. We are all wondering whether it will end, as everybody thinks it will, with the end of the present Government in the very near future.

I think the Minister stated in his opening speech that about 700 people here paid surtax. These would be in the higher income group. These would be the people who are the industrialists and the big employers of labour.

I would like to correct the Deputy on that. I said that those who pay a substantial sum in surtax number at most about 700. They are not industrialists.

They would be those who have an income of over £5,000 a year.

Would not some of them be industrialists?

Some of them—not most of them.

Those who pay big sums in income-tax will probably be people who have employees. This is an old game, and the popular game of taxing the man with the big money. It has been tried all over the world for the greater part of this century. It has been tried by left wing Governments; it has been tried by right wing Governments. It is a measure that hits only a few people but, even though it hits only a few, it reacts just as heavily on the ordinary individual as any other tax. To my mind excessive income-tax is responsible for many of the evils existent in the western hemisphere to-day. It impedes production. It is responsible in large measure for unemployment.

I do not think anyone on the Government Benches can be complacent about the situation that exists at the present time. In the town from which I come—the town of Gorey—we have a leather factory. At one time it employed 200 men. At the present time only 40 to 50 men are employed there, and they have only just gone back into employment. A fortnight or three weeks ago there were only 20 men in employment there.

The reason why they have been taken back into employment is because the stock piles—these, apparently, have been denied to a large extent from the benches opposite—that were held by these factories for the Government—by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs which, I understand, is the contracting Department for the Government—have recently been drawn upon to the extent of some 30 per cent.

That is only one factory. I can go to the other end of my constituency, to New Ross, where we have the Driver Harris electrical factory which is also on short time. I think that, if an analysis were made of the situation, it would be found that the real reason why the leather factory at Gorey and the electrical factory at New Ross have recently been on short time was due to the fact that there has been a restriction of credit and the application of a restrictive policy generally. Let us accept facts as we find them and be sensible. We say on this side of the House, with every measure of confidence and truth, that this country is underdeveloped. Deputies and Ministers on that side may deny that, but this is perhaps the most underdeveloped country in the western world to-day.

Hear, hear!

That is not our fault. It is the fault of our political history. We had to fight hard and long for our freedom. Many sacrifices were made, as many from these benches as from the benches opposite. The sacrifices were, I suppose, 50-50. Now that we have got our own Government we surely have the right to determine what we will do with our own assets, whether they are external or internal assets. We should use them for the benefit of our own people, and that is the key and the kernel of the whole situation here.

Hear, hear!

Some Fianna Fáil Deputies may smile at that. If they go down the country, face their constituents and talk the situation over with them they will find that what I say is the unanimous opinion of the people throughout the country.

Let me stress this point. I said just now that the Driver Harris factory at New Ross, which is an electrical equipment factory, is on short time. Why is it on short time? Because there is not the demand now that there was before for the ingredients that they produce, the flex for the wiring of houses. Why is the demand not as great as it was before? Let those opposite say what they will, the reason is that they are not building houses to the same degree or with the same rapidity that we built them. Am I not entitled to ask, in view of that situation, whether the Irish people are not entitled to have the money of their own citizens utilised to give them houses as well as to drain the land for rural electrification? Are they not entitled to have that money utilised at home for the development of our harbours and our fisheries and for the purpose of giving loans to farmers who cannot get loans? As far as I can find in the Budget speech of the Minister for Finance, the only thing he offers the farmers is a sum of £250,000 to be divided amongst about 300,000 of them. The position is not that the farmer can apply and get any of that £250,000 for the asking. In fact, he has to go to the Agricultural Credit Corporation and pay 6 per cent. on the loan he obtains. He has also to go to a Deputy, not once but probably half a dozen times, to help get his application put through and, in addition, he has to mortgage his farm and give an absolute gilt-edged security for the loan.

And answer 24 questions.

The farmers want money just as other people want it. A man may have had a bit of bad luck and may want to buy in stock rapidly. What chance has he, other than a loan system, in this State of getting money in the near future? I have had personal experience of this, and so has every Deputy on every side of the House. I know one man who buried a lot of his stock last autumn. He has been trying to get a loan to restock his land. He has had to mortgage his farm, and has done everything possible to get the loan. He will probably get it now any day, but how is he going to buy stock now? If he could have been able to get the money last autumn he could buy in stock at a reasonable price. How is he going to buy now on a rising market, and how is he going to make money to pay back what he owes? That is the sort of credit the farmers have.

He could get it if he was going to build a picture house or a dog track.

I think that both Ministers and Deputies should waken up to the fact that the people of the country are not satisfied with them. It remains to be seen whether they will manage to survive with their razoredge majority. It seems to be quite obvious now that the people of the country do not want them. It is dogmatically and categorically evident that the people do not want this Administration any longer. If they are going to hold on by their razoredge majority, at least let them do the decent thing and face up to the situation that this country did not win its freedom for the purpose of running neck-and-neck with Threadneedle Street or with the British financiers, or for the purpose of putting into effect the policy of the Central Bank.

I do not want to be too hard on the Central Bank or on the Department of Finance. They have their job to do. If they did not warn the people of the dangers, the vicissitudes and the misfortunes that lay ahead, and if the State were drifting on the rocks, they would be the first people to get the blame. We would all say that they had not done their duty, but surely in a case like that while a Department of State, holding so much responsibility has a duty to picture the situation to the people and to the Government in power, it should not make it very much worse than it is.

I think myself that probably nobody was more surprised than the Department of Finance, or the Central Bank, when they realised that the Minister for Finance was going to introduce this extraordinary Budget. It has been stated from the benches opposite that our criticism is of a back-biting, malicious nature. In fact, they can use any number of adjectives they like. But surely this is a democratic country and we are entitled to state our views. We have been told that we have offered no alternative and have made no constructive statements from these benches. Deputy Dr. ffrenchO'Carroll told us that he could not vote because nobody on these benches would tell him what we would do if we got into power again. Now, has it not been stated in this House by Front Bench Leaders of this Party and of other Parties in Opposition, and has it not been stated publicly in the Press up and down the country that if we get the chance we will repeal these taxes. May I make this appeal to the Government? If you hang on by a thread, as you are hanging on by a thread, do one decent thing before you go out— that is, take this load off the real poor people in this country who can least afford to bear it.

This afternoon, in the course of the discussion on this Bill which unfortunately became a little frayed, a Deputy on the opposite benches who entered this House for the first time with me 11 months ago, said in a rather snobbish way and from his academic heights, that something very valuable on the financial situation would come forth from me. In speaking to-night on this Bill, I do so in the knowledge that I have not any great insight as regards finance matters. I speak, however, from the experience that I have gained from travelling up and down my constituency during the last month. During that period I have gleaned some of the facts which have accrued already from the introduction of this Budget. We have been lectured in this House not since the introduction of the Budget but ever since we entered it and since this Government was formed 11 months ago.

We have been told by various Ministers at various times that we have been living beyond our means, that we should tighten our belts and that it was necessary that we should march step by step with Britain in introducing an austerity programme.

We were presented with twins pretty late last year in the shape of the Central Bank Report and the White Paper issued by the Minister for Finance. They were very similar in their contents. There was a very vigorous debate on both of those documents and, as a result of the cogent and unquestionable arguments put up by the Opposition, the Tánaiste performed a complete volte face in repudiating the report of the Central Bank. In this Budget and in the financial approach to our economy for the coming year we see a complete reversal of the Tánaiste's statement at that time and we see now being implemented certain provisions in the Central Bank Report over which the quasi-Fianna Fáil Government could not stand at that time.

Statements were made, principally by the Minister for Finance and the banshee of the Government, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, which resulted in the creation of an actual crisis in this country. Such phrases were used as: "The situation is difficult to the verge of desperation." Can we say that these statements were fraught with any due consideration or, if they were, what type of measuring rod was used? Did they at any time realise the effect which these speeches would have on the entire business of the State?

Did they realise in their advocacy of restriction of credit, in the support which they gave to the banks in carrying out that policy, that they were denying to every small trader as well as to those engaged in bigger business the wherewithal to give credit to those who had accounts with them? Did they realise that the small farmer who could not afford to pay cash down for requirements by way of seeds, fertilisers, machinery, and so forth, to the local business people, when he could not get credit, would naturally have to curtail any plans he might have had to increase production this year? The effect of that will be experienced at the end of the year when the returns will indicate that we will not have the expansion in agricultural output which should accrue as a result of the moneys that were well invested in the past four years in reclaiming and refertilising land, in the provision of expert advisers, in the provision of up-to-date machinery to ensure that there would be available to the people the necessaries of life in the way of food at the lowest possible cost to them and that surplus which, according to the opening statement of the Minister for Finance, he regarded as being the most valuable contribution which this country could make towards remedying the position in relation to the balance of payments.

We have been told, I think it was by the Taoiseach, that, in implementing certain measures here, such as the cut in subsidies, the bringing forward of the Budget, the cut in the travel allowance—matters which are very like those introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Britain—that it is not because they did it that they were essentially wrong. We say that the conditions in Britain as they are to-day and conditions here cannot be compared, and that it is looking at it in an entirely wrong light to compare them.

We feel that this little country has had for hundreds of years to endure very grievous hardships, and now that we have the opportunity to build on the foundations laid some brief 30 or 35 years, we should not let pass any opportunity of giving our people houses in which they could rear their families with a degree of comfort and some insurance that certain physical defects which ensued from bad housing in the past would be very greatly reduced, if not entirely eliminated.

In pursuing the capital investment programme, the inter-Party Government did a great thing for this country. Despite all the taunts and jeers from Government back benchers, we feel that it is well worth investing money in the erection of houses, sanatoria, the reclamation of land, additional telephone facilities, afforestation, rural electrification—any and every scheme which will bring to all sections of our people a higher standard of living and ensure to them and their children in this country a means of livelihood, homes and incomes commensurate at least with the simple demands they make on the State.

Consequently, we regard any comparison between our problems and those of Britain as being entirely wrong. In the course of the debate not one item of expenditure by the inter-Party Government in their capital investment programme has been singled out as being an item which the new Government consider as having been in any way worthless. In fact, although we do not contend for one moment that they have followed step by step in the maintenance of these schemes, at least, they have not abandoned them. Any criticism we may have to offer is in relation to the administration of the schemes.

Despite the fact that throughout this country to-day, through the extensive political organisation supporting that Party, propaganda has been disseminated alleging that the inter-Party Government left a load of debt behind them. We have no particularising of any items in relation to these debts by the Minister and we have not heard an explanation from any Deputy as to why they left office early in 1948 and left such debt behind them that it took a national loan of £12,000,000 to clear it. There is not a word about those. Would one not think that a Party with a record like that would not dare to make any reference to leaving debts behind?

Is it not a fact that the system of budgeting introduced by Deputy McGilligan made very clear to the people the moneys which were for use in development and the moneys which were necessary for houskeeping purposes? It is regrettable that the Minister has intimated his intention not to continue that system of presenting the Budget as it would indicate clearly to the people that what they were asked to pay in taxes was necessary for the purpose of paying year-to-year expenses and, side by side with that, that it was their intention to embark on schemes of capital development which could well be met by borrowing. It has not been intimated to us that development should be restricted to the point that nothing should be done, except what could be paid for in a single year, and, in fact, in the Minister's statement we have the information that it is the Government's intention to seek a very substantial loan to maintain schemes in operation and to pursue a capital investment programme the particulars of which have not been presented to us. Would it be unfair to say that opportunities have been missed by this Government in relation to seeking the savings of the people for that purpose?

It is regrettable that the Marshall Aid moneys which were being employed by Deputy McGilligan, while Minister for Finance, to supplement the loans intended for capital investment should have been completely spent by this Government from 13th June last to the end of the year, that in that short period they should have disposed of such a great amount of money, and it is certainly strange that they should level criticism at their predecessors for having spent these moneys at a much slower rate. A certain amount of the Marshall Aid moneys was intended to be employed in a prudent manner as a shelter-belt for the protection of that capital investment programme, and consequently the complete spending of these moneys is very unfortunate. This evening, another Deputy on the Fianna Fáil side quoted from a statement of some American which was slighting in its references to the manner in which the previous Government was spending these moneys.

I cannot recall the name he mentioned, because at the time I could not identify him as having been prominent in any way, in an advisory capacity or with a roving commission, to visit various countries to see how the moneys were being administered, but I want to place on record a statement made by the E.C.A. administrator, Mr. Foster, in May, 1951. I claim that he is a better known authority on this matter, and I quote his statement to controvert the statement made by a Deputy on the Government side. In that month, Mr. Foster said:—

"The suspension of E.C.A. aid is the best possible recognition of the strides the Irish people have taken towards economic self-sufficiency under the impetus of the Marshall Plan. With the dollars and technical assistance provided through E.C.A. help, Ireland has accomplished agricultural and other economic reforms in three years that otherwise would have taken a generation to achieve. The economic recovery of Ireland and the sterling area as a whole has progressed to the point where Ireland no longer needs outside dollar assistance to maintain a healthy economy."

I regard that commentary as being unbiased, completely unconcerned with internal politics here, and an expression of the feelings of one who should know, of one who was responsible to his own country for the disbursement of moneys under the Marshall Plan, with a view to ensuring that they would be spent in such a manner as to bring to those countries an improvement which would be reflected in their standard of living and output.

I do not claim that anything like the full results of the expenditure of much of these moneys has yet been achieved. The thousands of acres of land which have been and are being reclaimed will give, in increasing amounts, results which will benefit this country for very many years. I know that to-day in the south we have a very great surplus of applications for the delivery of ground limestone—a surplus because the fine organisation dealing with the distribution of that limestone is incapable of handling the tremendous number of applications coming in.

That is a tribute to those who decided that that was a scheme worthy of introduction. My only regret is that to-day more of that limestone is not made available for the poorer lands and for those who, during the winter months, engaged in extremely hard manual labour in draining land and clearing it of scrub, and who now look to the distribution of this limestone and the supply of fertilisers to enable them to put back into that land, so unproductive for so long, the fertility which will be reflected in our agricultural output within a very short time.

Very early in the discussions on the Budget, in fact some 12 or 13 hours after the Minister had concluded his statement, Deputy Costello, the former Taoiseach, claimed from these benches that the Minister had budgeted for a surplus. He gave particulars of the items in respect of which he argued that there was overestimation. We have had a very lengthy discussion since then and it is accepted by independent authorities that the Government have not succeeded in rebutting what Deputy Costello put forward, that they were budgeting for a surplus.

We are told that the additional taxation now being imposed is for the purpose of getting more money. This is not the first time that Fianna Fáil got such ideas. In the autumn of 1947 a similar brainwave came upon them and they imposed taxes very much less in their severity than those which are now in operation as a result of the passing of the Budget. They were imposed for the purpose of bringing more money into the Exchequer but when the people get an opportunity of recording their opinion of that action they gave a very emphatic answer and removed that Government from office and elected the inter-Party Government in 1948. Within a matter of weeks, Mr. McGilligan, then Minister for Finance, did away with these penal taxes and notwithstanding that fact he got more money because the people actually consumed more than they would have done if the additional taxes had been allowed to continue.

We wonder, in the light of our experiences travelling around our own constituencies in the course of the past month, whether the Minister will receive the money which he expects? He must certainly think very well of conditions in the country, as a result of the inter-Party Government's administration, if he feels that the income of every section of our people is such that it can withstand the increase in the price of every little simple luxury which they buy, if next July they can face a 10.2 increase in the cost of living in addition to the increase in the cost of living which occurred since they were elected to office up to the Budget, and if the people will continue to buy the same amount of these commodities and bring to the Exchequer the amounts which the Minister requires to balance his Budget.

I know that there has been a big falling-off in the amount of cigarettes purchased throughout the country. I know that there has been a big falling-off in the amount of drink consumed. I know that to-day we see in the shop windows popular brands of cigarettes which could not be obtained, except you were a very steady customer, until this Budget was introduced. I know that the man who drinks a pint is now cut down to the bottle of stout or the half-pint. I know that dockers in the City of Cork—I am sure the same can be said for the dockers of Dublin—are denied what is to them certainly not a luxury—the pint which they take at mid-day together with the few sandwiches which they bring with them from home.

But what will the position be—bad as it is now—next July if this Government is still in existence and if the food subsidies are removed? I claim as emphatically as I can that the effects of the very greatly increased taxes on cigarettes and beer and the removal of the subsidies on flour, tea, sugar and butter hit hardest at the poorer sections of the community. In the rural areas people work in the open and often work under conditions which require a certain amount of drink, such as at threshings. They work under conditions which make it very difficult for them to do that work unless they have that beverage. These people will now be asked to pay more into the Exchequer than people who have a very much higher income and enjoy a much more leisured life. They are described as luxuries.

The man with the higher salary or the man who is better off has a choice of luxuries. The manual worker has not that choice. Is it a great luxury to him to enjoy a couple of bottles of stout after he has finished his day's work? To the worker who has his cigarette, if he works during the day, is that a very great luxury?

Is it not a fact that his work will be affected if he is suddenly broken off from the enjoyment of that cigarette? We have the indication that such is happening and that the people are so incensed by the needlessness of these impositions that they intend to economise in that respect and consume less. It is extraordinary that, in a situation such as this, following on the events leading up to it, the scare speeches, all this talk of the country being in an almost desperate position, we had not a gesture from the Government such as that given by the Prime Minister of Britain and by his Ministers before they imposed similar conditions upon a nation which had its back to the wall. They reduced their own salaries as a little gesture before embarking on such a course. Such was not done here.

Relief has been given in this Budget to one section of the community Indeed, it is a compliment to the criticisms offered from this side of the House that the Minister should spend so much time yesterday dealing with the necessity for the abolition of the dance tax. Very early in the debate some letters were read which passed between the Ballroom Proprietors' Association and the Fianna Fáil Party, whereby they assured Fianna Fáil that they would do all in their power to secure their return to office and whereby they, in return, were assured by the Fianna Fáil Party that it was only a matter of doing that and securing their re-election when, at the first opportunity, they would remit the dance tax.

In that letter we had one sum indicated—the sum of £250 from one dance hall proprietor. By way of a parliamentary question, I have since ascertained that there are 1,285 licensed dance halls in this country. I am sure that many more have been built since these figures were compiled.

We can infer from that, that quite a considerable sum must have accured to the Fianna Fáil organisation during the election campaign as a result of that assurance from the dance hall proprietors. That must have been the overriding factor in the Minister's decision to remit the dance tax. You had to admire the courage of those supporting the Government who put forward certain reasons why the tax should be taken off. One was that it was a difficult tax to collect. I think we know that before a dance can be held the stamps must be purchased. We know that in country areas at least dances are not held every night in the week. You may have one dance a fortnight, two in a month, and it is accepted that the officer responsible for ensuring that the tickets are properly stamped need not attend every one of these functions; one dance out of two would be sufficient. It would cause concern to the proprietor of the dance hall if the officer visited the hall on each occasion on which a dance was held. Let us compare the number of visits involved with the number necessary to ensure that cinema tickets are properly stamped. If that argument is put forward regarding dances surely it is more pertinent regarding cinemas where entertainments are held four or five nights per week in the country. If the officer must visit the cinema on each occasion when an entertainment is shown surely it must cost the State a greater sum to collect the duty than in the case of dances. We know that these officers engage in many other activities in the administration of that branch of government.

Furthermore, this is a grave disadvantage to the remote areas where little communities were given some little recognition by Deputy McGilligan. In his time the tax did not apply where the village had a population under 500. To use the Fianna Fáil argument, this reduced the cost of collecting the tax. It gave the village dance halls a chance as they were up against the difficulty of a dwindling population. If we are to stem the flight from the land, an object to which so much lip service is paid on so many occasions, we should allow these little communities to enjoy an occasional dance tax free. I should like to cite the instance of two young men who borrowed a considerable sum of money in order to build a dance hall, secure as they thought, in that advantage over the big commercial dance hall proprietors 20 miles away. They did that since Fianna Fáil left office because, as we know, at that time luxury building was forbidden. Now they are denied that little advantage and are hard put to it to compete with the very much stronger opposition of the big commercial ballrooms. The same difficulty applies to societies which were given tax free facilities formerly and are now on the same footing as commercial ballroom proprietors. I have heard Deputies on the opposite side of the House say that many sporting organisations would benefit as a result of the remission of the tax but is it not a fact that the owner of a ballroom will now require those societies to pay a higher rent for the hall? He will, naturally enough, because he would reap a greater profit by keeping the hall for his own use. Bands have already availed of this opportunity to raise their charges. I know a town not very far from here where the proprietor of a ballroom during Easter week-end made £170 additional profit as a result of the remission of the tax. Has any Deputy in the course of this discussion intimated that there has been 6d. reduction in admission charge to dance halls or that those who participate have benefited in the slightest degree from the remission of the tax?

They say that £140,000 is not worth talking about, that we only talk in millions, but it has been pointed out that £140,000 would service a loan for house building. Much of the tuberculosis which is rampant in this country can be traced to dancing into the small hours of the night on too many nights of the week, and with increased dancing and reduced food the future does not look too rosy from that point of view.

In July next the workers will pay more for their bread, considerably more than people with a higher standard of living in the higher income groups, because they have bread for 21 meals in the week, whereas people who enjoy a large salary have their cereal, their bacon and egg, for their breakfast and will not eat as much bread or consume as much butter as the workers. At mid-day how much bread will the rich man consume? A half-cut of bread, a dinner bun with his soup, and then he has his soup, meat, a choice of vegetables, sweet and coffee. He will not be so much affected by the Budget. In the evening, if he has not dinner, he has meat again with his tea and, again, will not be so much affected. The worker, however, going out to the bog, to the road or to any type of work, must take his little satchel with bread and butter, and he is the man who will be affected by this. I well recall that during the last general election campaign the Party which now holds office specifically stated that they would not impose penal taxes or reduce the food subsidies. One Deputy who had not the courage to vote one way or the other on the Budget and who, if his supporters had adopted a similar attitude in the general election and had refrained from voting, would not be here——

On a point of order. I took the Deputy to say that he knew a gentleman not far from the City of Dublin who made £170 additional profit because the tax was removed from his dance hall. Surely the Deputy should realise that the remission does not come into force until 1st August. Therefore I suggest that he is talking through his hat.

He has been doing that all night.

Is that a point of order?

Yes. You are not telling the truth.

That is a very queer point of order.

That is not a point of order. Will the Deputy be allowed to get away with that?

It is not a point of order. The Deputy can speak in his own good time. The people of his constituency can dance tax free knowing that they will have to pay more for their bread, butter and sugar.

You were not telling the truth.

Deputy O'Sullivan is in possession.

He was one of the Deputies who were returned to this House after the last election because of the increase which had come about in the price of butter, in company with the additional Fianna Fáil Deputy who secured a seat in Cork City. On every doorstep there the one cry was advanced: "The inter-Party Government allowed the cost of living to rise; you are paying an additional 2d. per lb. for your butter." That was the predominant feature in the election address in Cork and I am sure it also was the predominant feature of election addresses in the Deputy's constituency.

Will the Deputy be sporting enough to withdraw the charge he made here against a ballroom proprietor? It is unfair to make a charge against anybody who cannot defend himself.

I was acting on advice supplied to me.

The Deputy was misinformed and will he now withdraw the charge?

Deputy O'Sullivan is in possession, and he must be allowed to proceed.

I warn the Deputy that if he persists in his present action he will be subjected to the same cross-examination from these benches when he is speaking.

The Deputy can make no such threat. The Deputy should proceed with his speech.

Since the Deputy persists in interrupting me, I cannot proceed.

The Deputy knows my conduct——

Deputy Gallagher must cease interrupting.

I say that the tax is not yet imposed.

The indications at the moment are that the Government will not be in existence long enough to enforce it.

We heard that before.

You will get the answer shortly from the by-election results.

Do not worry.

Let us come back to the Finance Bill.

We consider, Sir, that the present Government have no mandate; they went to the electorate last year, and threw the responsibility for the fact that the cost of living had been allowed to rise by a few points on the outgoing Government, but they are now about to impose crushing burdens on the people in relation to the cost of living.

I cannot follow Deputy Bartley's argument when he suggests that, as a result of the increase in the price of butter, certain farmers in his constituency will now resort to the production of butter at home. We are aware that this would entail a great loss, inasmuch as it requires more milk to make a lb. of butter at home than it does to make it when the milk is supplied to the creameries. He stated that when that would occur those farmers would be in a position to go into competition with the butter supplied from the creameries, thereby effecting a reduction in price. That is an argument which will certainly bear amplification, because any Deputy coming from a dairying area fails to understand what is intended by the argument.

Deputy Dr. Hillery who would be much more conversant than Deputy Bartley with the problems of the dairy farmers feels that the rise in the price of butter will ensure that the price of milk will be maintained to the creamery supplier. Again I cannot understand that reasoning, because the Minister for Agriculture has already intimated to a group which approached him recently seeking an increase in the price of milk that such an increase would be impossible. The Minister said that an increase in the price of milk would have a very unfavourable effect on the cost of living, and that the price of butter cannot be allowed to rise further. It bears out what we claimed here on the Budget debate, and that is that the fact of doing away with the subsidy on butter not alone affects the consumer but that serious malnutrition will result; the people will be unable to buy the amount of butter which would maintain themselves and their families in reasonable health. The removal of the subsidy on butter will also mean that the cushion has now gone which existed between the high cost of butter production and the price which the consumer was called upon to bear. We think that is something which will react badly before very long.

We have had included also in the statement of the Minister a sum designed to meet the cost of importing butter, but it is now apparent since we have an increase in the price of butter to the consumer here that a profit will be made on the butter now being imported. Consequently, that is one of the little items which will help to expand the amount which the Minister hopes to have in the kitty when he faces the electorate in 12 months' time. But we do not agree about the time factor; we think that he will have recovered from the effects of the campaign by that time.

Already the effects of the increased bank charges have come to roost not alone to the business people, but to local authorities throughout the country. The combination of the troubles in relation to restriction of credit and increased bank charges, added to the increased cost of living, means that we will have from now on— we see in the daily papers where it has already started—demands for increased wages by all people employed by local authorities. Despite the fact that, perhaps, all members of local bodies did not agree in condemning the Budget, they were agreed on the point that the increase in the cost of living warrants an increase to the employees of local authorities—to every road worker and to everybody else paid from rates. Therefore, it is not only by way of direct taxation that the country will suffer. The people will have to meet higher commitments when they get their rate demands, as a result of the application of the provisions of this Budget. This means that many people who felt that they were already severely burdened in that respect will now be called upon to bear a load which we feel they cannot bear. We know the effect on the rent of houses will be considerable and that members of local authorities will certainly be well put to it to find a solution to these new problems which directly arise out of the implementation of this Budget.

Many back benchers in the Fianna Fáil Party have adverted at quite some length to emigration and to unemployment. They were well advised; it shows that at least they have realised much more than the Minister for Finance that these two factors are extremely pertinent to a discussion on the affairs of the country. The Minister read a very lengthy statement in introducing his Budget, but did not refer once to either emigration or unemployment. There was a certain check on unemployment up to recently. In certain classes in the community where certain men were required for essential work it was desirable that a check would be kept on them at the ports. Now that is gone.

As a result we will not know from now on the classes of people who will seek employment abroad, which will certainly be a handicap to the employers who require such labour. One Deputy speaking earlier to-day referred to the high figures of emigration in 1950. They will, of course, appreciate that in that year many thousands left this country on pilgrimages and, therefore, that figure does not truly reflect the numbers that were going abroad to seek employment.

If they went on pilgrimages did they not come back? This is terrible nonsense.

Let the child alone.

Included in this Budget is quite a definite proposition, that of increased petrol tax. I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m., until 10,30 a.m. on Thursday, 15th May, 1952.
Barr
Roinn