Committee on Finance. - Resolution No. 5—General (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (16th Dáil) – Thursday, 23 May 1957

Committee on Finance. - Resolution No. 5—General (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

That it is expedient to amend the law relating to customs and inland revenue (including excise) and to make further provision in connection with finance.—(Minister for Finance.)

Mr. McQuillan

Last night, I was in the process of examining this Budget so far as its provisions affect the twin problems of emigration and unemployment. It is very disturbing to find prominent people in the political field to-day who, when they are in office, seek to suggest that the problem of emigration is not as serious as many people say that it is and who, when they are out of office, talk a great deal about the terrible evils of emigration and unemployment and, then, when they resume office, tell us that some steps will be taken to deal with the abnormal unemployment and abnormal emigration. These problems become abnormal only when these people take office.

That criticism is not directed alone towards the present Government. It applies to and is directed towards all past Governments here. It is very depressing to have to speak here at all on the problem of emigration. People are fed up listening to all the talk about it. There is talk from all of us here and there is no practical step whatever taken to solve or even to ease the problem.

This Budget gives absolutely no hope to those who are preparing to embark on the emigrant ship, no hope whatever that they will have an opportunity of living here and of having security or being employed at home. I heard a prominent Minister seriously suggesting that we would want a new movement here, a crusade, to deal with the problem of emigration. I do not know whether or not his words have been taken seriously by a new group who describe themselves as the Anti-Emigration Movement. This country is full of well-meaning people who are ready to start all sorts of silly organisations to deal with major problems and, with all due respect to the people in this movement, I can describe it as nothing but a silly organisation, diverting people's minds from the fundamental methods by which this problem must be tackled. This movement has been started outside this House in the past week or fortnight and it was only last week that a Minister of State suggested that there should be a crusade amongst the young people here in Ireland urging them to stay at home. I want to ask that Minister very bluntly: stay at home for what and live on what?

Is it suggested that the young men and women of the present generation have so little spirit left in them that, having no responsibility such as a family, they are prepared to live on the dole or on unemployment benefit for perhaps the next six or 12 months in the hope that they will get temporary employment then? Is that the suggestion? Is that what the crusade is for? I do not know whether or not that Minister thinks he is back in his boy scout days again, but it would appear that he is, or that he is dreaming. As Minister of State, he will have to do something concrete about the problem of emigration rather than talk about a crusade among the younger generation and suggest that that can solve it.

The problem of emigration can be solved only by State action, Government action. In the process of solving the problem, many people will be hurt. The trouble with Governments here is that they are prepared to tread on the toes of the weaker sections of the community and bow and scrape to those in the vested interest group. Until some Government is prepared to take the necessary action and to deal with the vested interests that obtain here and that have strangled the country for the past 30 years—and I hope that will be in the near future— we shall not see the necessary steps taken to put into operation the remedies that may in time end emigration.

I never suggested in this House that emigration could be ended overnight. One just cannot do it by turning on a new policy, but if we are to see an end to emigration we will have to see the outlines of a policy that will at some stage reduce emigration. We have not seen any sign of such a policy. We have not seen any sign of it in this Budget or any Budget since I came into this House and I think Deputies will agree with me that there was little sign of it in previous Budgets. We have two different views about this matter of emigration. One group of people say: "Do not go away, there is work for you at home. Start a crusade, encourage young people to stay at home. Put your hands in your pockets, hold up the unemployment exchanges and draw your unemployment benefit." That is the mentality on one side. On the other side you have the people who say it is a good thing that people emigrate and say: "Look at the wonderful spiritual empire which we have abroad." It is a free country, I hope, and everyone is entitled to his views. I for one do not subscribe to that view. I think it is a tragic illusion if these people really believe that.

We have not got a spiritual empire abroad any more than we have any consultation with the man in the moon. The majority of our Irish emigrants, whether in America or Britain, got the menial jobs and became labourers and maids in those countries. The majority of our emigrants were sent out of this country with a very, very low standard of education which was a disgrace in a so-called Christian country. It is a disgrace to have to say that the majority of the unfortunate people who had to emigrate were handicapped by a poor standard of education. The greatest tribute that can be paid to them is that in spite of the handicap of a low standard of education many of them succeeded in reaching high positions. The fact is, however, that for every one that was able to reach the top a thousand stayed at the bottom. It was not their fault; it was the fault of all the Irish Governments since we achieved the measure of independence which we have to-day. It is pitiful to suggest that we should keep up this huge stream of emigrants in order to change the outlook of the peoples of the world.

It was only recently that a number of representatives of tourist agencies on the Continent were brought to this country and they admitted, quite frankly, although it was not a diplomatic thing to do, that the majority of their countrymen did not know where Ireland was. They knew that there was such a place but they never heard of this spiritual empire. I am not the only person talking about this claptrap about letting our people go abroad so that we will have a place of glory amongst the nations. St. Patrick's Day is a great day all over the world so far as Irish people are concerned but the fact is that there are more Irish people celebrating St. Patrick's Day outside the country than inside it. Dr. Lucey, the Bishop of Cork, said that it was a disgrace that there are more people celebrating St. Patrick's Day outside Ireland than were celebrating it in Ireland. He said that it was no credit to any Government that that position obtained. I agree thoroughly with Dr. Lucey's remarks in that regard.

I agree with the Minister for Industry and Commerce when he said that the ills which exist in this country are deep-rooted. They will not be solved by day to day measures. They will not be solved in this House by the Taoiseach getting up and stating that during the inter-Party régime more people were unemployed and more people left the country than during the Fianna Fáil régime. That is claptrap. The tragic position is that since 1922 more people have left this country due to economic circumstances than ever left it during any comparable period under an alien Government, that is, with the exception of the famine years. That position reflects no great credit on Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael or on the inter-Party Government. The serious pouring out of the best blood of the country is something that can be laid at the door of all political Parties. I cannot be accused here of being prejudiced in favour of the inter-Party Government. To be fair let all Parties carry the blame for this run of emigration and the high rate of unemployment.

I think it deplorable to have men who are looked upon with such great respect by the people as is the Taoiseach, coming in here and suggesting that the country was on the right road, that the forward march of the nation was halted by the inter-Party Government and then to find his own Minister for Finance and his own Cabinet Ministers contradicting him within two hours by stating that policies on economic matters have proved unsuccessful. The Taoiseach cannot have it both ways. The Minister for Industry and Commerce says that we will have to embark on a new line if we are to solve our difficulties. It is tragic to have a man with such a responsible position in the country trying to suggest that the evils of unemployment and emigration are the result only of the lackadaisical policy of the former inter-Party Government. The former inter-Party Government carried out the policy of Fianna Fáil and Fianna Fáil in turn went on with the policy carried out by the inter-Party Government. The very same type of framework is in the Budget statements; they all run on the same lines.

In 1952 the then Taoiseach said that the Budget had to be balanced in order to help us to maintain our political and economic independence. The very same thing was trotted out by him this day week. It would appear that everything in the garden was rosy from 1952. In 1953 things were better and in 1954 things were better still. Then he disappears out of office and everything begins to lag. Is that what people are asked to swallow? According to Deputy Childers, in 1952 the people were spending too much. It became necessary to put hair shirts on them to keep them from thinking in terms of luxuries. The people were drinking too much, smoking too much. Deputy Childers——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister for Lands.

Mr. McQuillan

The Minister for Lands said there was too much drink consumed, too many cigarettes smoked, and the suggestion was that the drink was all consumed by Irishmen. What he did not take into consideration was that visitors from abroad play a big part in the consumption of liquor, especially in the consumption of what I would call luxury drink—spirits. Whenever we have an increase in the consumption of liquor, we also have a Minister for Finance to tell us that the consumption of liquor has increased and could bear another tax. That is said despite the well-known fact that consumption of liquor goes up because of the quantity tourists drink.

If we are to encourage these people to come we must give them something that other nations do not. The least we can do is try to keep down as much as possible the cost of some commodities. As I have said, we cannot say that our people are drinking too much, because we must take into account the fact that a big proportion of our liquor consumption is due to the presence of visitors from abroad.

I listened very carefully to the contribution of the Taoiseach. I think somebody will have to explain to him, burst the bubble, in relation to the comparison he made between the running of the State and the running of an ordinary household. Deputy Dr. Browne and other Deputies explained how misleading the over-simplification of Deputy de Valera is. There is no doubt that when you listen to him making a comparison, if you do not look into his suggestions very carefully you begin to believe them. The trouble is that a large proportion of the people just listen to him casually and take his comparisons as the ordinary newspaper reader does his headlines without bothering to read the small print. Deputy de Valera——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Taoiseach.

Mr. McQuillan

The Taoiseach makes a simple case as to how the country should be run, saying it should be run on the same lines as a household is run. He is famous for that kind of comparison. Sometimes it goes down well and convinces a large proportion of the electorate. Briefly his explanation is this: the housewife and the family work on the same basis in regard to their finances as does the State. We all accept that the duty of the head of the family is to arrange that expenditure is kept within the means of the family. If, on examination of the family financial account, the husband and wife find that things are not going too well and that they will be in a serious position the following year if they do not prune, they must take steps to curb their expenditure. Naturally they cannot keep on living on the Kathleen Mavoureen system.

The Taoiseach says the same thing applies to the State—that the Government is in the same position in relation to the country as the housewife is to the family. I suggest that when the housewife finds that at her present standard of living she cannot make ends meet, whether she lives in the upper stratum or the lower, she makes her cuts on luxury articles. Let us take the wealthy family first. When they find they are not able to keep up their former standard of expenditure, they will first look to their luxury car and decide that they could do with a smaller car. Another family might decide to do without their holidays on the Continent or their fortnight in Ballybunion, in Lisdoonvarna or Salthill. In still another family the housewife would decide to reduce her consumption of cigarettes while the husband would cut down on his liquor.

Families decide to take various steps like that. However, the last step they would think of taking would be a reduction on essential foodstuffs. When a family find that things are tight they will not cut down on the number of loaves they at present eat; they will not cut by half the amount of butter consumed. Neither will they cut down on milk or on tea. If they did any of these things they would be unfit for the responsibilities of parents.

If the Taoiseach wants to pursue his comparison of the Government with heads of households, then he will have to take the same logical steps as the husband and wife would. But his Minister for Finance did not start as the head of a family would have done; he did not start by pruning the luxuries. For a start, the Minister for Finance did not suggest that the Government would get rid of the luxury embassies we have abroad, on two of which we spent something like £500,000. He did not suggest to the President in that palatial establishment in the Park: "We will trim your sails for you; we will cut your expenditure in the coming year".

The Minister for Finance did not say: "We will get rid of these obsolete jet aeroplanes and try to use the proceeds for some productive purpose." He did not take any action in connection with these non-essentials. He did not suggest that the Government would get rid of the luxury motor cars in which the Ministers drive from their place of abode and instead provide them with baby Fords or Anglias. Instead, the action that was taken was to the detriment of the poorer sections of the community who now must pay more for and consume less of the essential articles of their diet. With one stroke they removed the subsidy on bread and butter.

The Taoiseach should be more realistic when he makes comparisons in this House between the running of the State and the running of a family. I would agree with his comparison if he were prepared to take the same steps as the head of a household takes in the balancing of his books, but, unfortunately, his comparison fits only on the surface. When you make a real and close examination you find there is no true comparison at all between the running of a State and the running of a family. There are vast resources at the disposal of a State which are never available to a family. I do not know whether or not the Government believe such resources—exist or whether the Government realise that the country itself, the manpower in it and the undeveloped assets we have in agriculture and so on, are, in themselves, first class assets. I do not think these things are taken into consideration at all.

The Budget itself is something which has come as a shock to the community, but it did not come as a shock to all the community. Some time has elapsed since the Budget statement was made and it is interesting to see how the Budget impositions were received and the reactions among various sections of the community to them. That is the truest picture you can get in regard to the people whom this Budget hits and whom it favours. If you give a man a prod of a pin, he will react; on the other hand, if you give him a £5 note, unless for a very doubtful venture, he will smile and be happy.

We will see where the praise came from and where the criticism came from, and let us see whether the praise or the criticism was justified. I should like to ask this House who welcomed this Budget. Was it the man whom the Taoiseach describes as the man with modest means who welcomed the Budget? Was it the small income group? Was it the salaried worker? Was it the small farmer who welcomed it or was it the unemployed man? Did any of these sections, or any representative of these sections of the community speak one word of welcome or praise for any part of this Budget? We have the various daily papers with their reporters going around the country taking the views of representatives of the different sections of the community. These papers are tripping over themselves to publish the reaction to the Budget from the various sections of the community. Was there printed from any of the sections I have mentioned one word of welcome or praise for any part of the Budget? I have not seen any word of praise and I made a close examination of most of the daily and weekly papers.

I have seen a welcome for the Budget as outlined in some of the papers from representatives of certain sections of the community. I have here a copy of the Irish Press, dated Thursday, May 9th, 1957, and the headings are: “A Realistic Budget: Commerce Chiefs on Dr. Ryan's proposals. A Realistic Budget ... a Facing up to the Problem ... a Step in the Right Direction.” I will just quote one or two of the individuals who are reported here as commenting upon the Budget. Mr. J. W. Gallagher, President of the Dublin Chamber of Commerce——

Mr. Gallagher

He is no relation of mine.

Mr. McQuillan

——said:—

"The patriotism of the people is being put to the test. Are they prepared to work for Ireland, in Ireland, and accept cheerfully the sacrifices they have been called upon to bear so that the nation may obtain the necessary breathing space to enable it to survive economically?"

That is the President of the Dublin Chamber of Commerce. He specifically asked whether the people were prepared to accept cheerfully the sacrifices they have been called upon to bear. Was he talking about the members of the Dublin Chamber of Commerce when he spoke about sacrifices? Will anybody in this House tell me what problem does it present to one of these individuals to pay 2d. or 3d. more for the loaf of bread, or what hardship is imposed on one of these gentlemen by the Budget in regard to the loaf of bread, or what hardship is imposed on his relations and household with regard to the purchase of the same quantity of butter? Is there a burden put upon them to wave the green, white and gold flag because they are sacrificing themselves for the future of this State? He went on to say:—

"On more occasions than one the Association of Chambers of Commerce of Ireland in budget submissions to Ministers for Finance had stressed that for years past they had been living beyond their means."

I think these people are living in cloud-cuckoo land when they talk about people living beyond their means.

Here is a quotation from a past President of the Federation of Irish Manufacturers, Mr. F. M. Summerfield. He said:—

"In common with other taxpayers, I do not relish increased taxation. But at least it must be said of the new taxes that they should yield the maximum amount to the Exchequer, as the collecting of them will not require any increase in administration charges.

The Minister for Finance has given a simple but realistic cure for our present economic difficulties."

I, like other Deputies, subscribe to the view that many of our manufacturers and industrialists are doing their job, but I also subscribe to the view of leading members of the Opposition and the Government that many of these Irish manufacturers and industrialists who speak and preach to the public are themselves hiding behind tariff walls and failing ignominiously to do their duty to the State.

It is too bad that all the burdens and the hardships must now be borne by the weaker sections of the community, while these same gentlemen who preach about the duties of the ordinary citizen themselves take no action to improve the situation financially by expanding production and getting into the export market. Yet Governments are prepared to listen carefully to the advice given by these gentlemen, some of whom I have referred to here in quotations.

The same type of people to whom I referred here, namely, the Chambers of Commerce, industrial groups and the company directors welcomed the 1952 Budget. But, in the welcoming process, they pointed out at the time that they were disappointed that certain other facilities, inducements and encouragements were not given to them in order to ease the burden of taxation and give them, perhaps, a further incentive to expand. You can take it that the Minister for Finance has heeded the expressions and admonitions of these gentlemen who spouted about giving them further facilities in 1952. He has listened to them with a sympathetic ear in the 1957 Budget.

I have here a report of the Association of Chambers of Commerce of Ireland in regard to the 1957-58 Budget and in the course of their pontifications on situations obtaining in the State they point out what they want for themselves, after telling the Minister how the people are living beyond their means and how the balance of payments problem exists. They state:—

"The association is pleased to note that during the past year the Minister has introduced the initial allowance principle and that 20 per cent. of the cost of machinery and 10 per cent. of industrial buildings, will in future be allowed as a deduction in income-tax assessments."

They go on to say that this will encourage business firms who have available capital to re-equip and modernise their plants. This is the kernel of the paragraph:—

"Some disappointment must be expressed, however, that the Minister did not see his way to increase the existing wear and tear allowance. No alteration in the wear and tear rates has been made since the State was established, although the British authorities have made several increases in that period."

The Minister, amongst other helps he gave them, made sure that that particular request was granted because, in column 952 of the Budget statement, he said:—

"I propose to lessen the tax burden upon trading profits by providing an accelerated depreciation allowance for plant and machinery (other than vehicles). This will take the form of a 25 per cent. increase in the present rate of wear and tear allowance and will have effect as from the year 1958-59."

He goes on to say, of course, that there will be no cost to the Exchequer in the present year, but every complaint that has been made over the years by these people who sheltered behind the tariff walls has been met, if not in the particular year in which it was made, in a year or two afterwards. They have got what they wanted but the public have not got the return in increased exports and increased employment as a result of the extra facilities granted to these people. I would not have the least objection to these people getting facilities if, as a result, they showed signs of appreciating them by expanding their output.

As I said, the section who welcomed this Budget was a limited section in the commercial field. The ordinary sections of the community did not welcome it. As a matter of fact, I was listening to the welcome which the unemployed had for it the other night. At the moment we are welcoming tourists into this country. Down in Dame Street, a first-class band is welcoming visitors every night and showing them what a beautiful place Dublin is by playing music, and helping the visitors to get into a good frame of mind before they go to bed. Inside the rails at Dame Street the band was playing "A Nation Once Again" and outside the rails there must have been three or four thousand Dublin people singing "Starvation Once Again". That was the welcome which a great section of Dublin citizens had for this Budget and, so far as they were concerned, that parody on that well-known song portrayed the situation existing amongst that part of the community in Dublin. Remember, there is nobody like the Dublin man to put his finger on the spot. It is a danger for the Government to find any section of the community in that position to-day.

The terms of the Budget weigh heavily in favour of the industrial and commercial groups. That is an extraordinary position to find, especially in view of the fact that over the years we have had warnings and admonitions, first given since I came into this House by Deputy McGilligan. His severe admonition to these sections was that if they did not play their part in expanding output and increasing the wealth of the country he would have to impose further excess profits tax on them. He followed that line for a number of years and Deputy Lemass, as I have already pointed out, skipped lightly over that warning of Deputy McGilligan. He did, however, give a warning to a certain section of the community, that section which had tariff walls and levies on products coming into the country, in order to strengthen their business here at home, that if that section did not respond to the protection given by increasing their output, a complete reexamination of all these tariff protections would be made. That is Deputy Lemass's way of repeating the threat made by Deputy McGilligan but, in spite of all the threats made, that section made no attempt to get into the export markets.

It took the setting-up of a State body, Córas Tráchtála Teoranta, to bring about any concerted move to get into foreign markets. All credit to them even though the result of that board's activities has been limited so far. Had it not been for State interference private enterprise would have failed to meet its obligations. We have heard a lot of talk here of what private enterprise could do if given a free rein. That means giving them Government grants, giving them increased wear and tear allowance and not attempting under any circumstances, to interfere with them because it is freedom that they want. Freedom for what? Is it freedom to sit down comfortably behind the tariff walls, to keep the company directors and the people who run these activities in luxury, to enable them to go to the Continent, to America, run their cars, their yachts and all the rest? Then they say to the community that we should be thankful to have them here to give a little employment.

Deputy Lemass and others have pointed out that there was to be no more feather-bed treatment of these gentlemen, that this feather-bed treatment would cease. Instead of a little chastisement, or at least a plea to these people to accept the same burdens and the same sacrifices as the rest of the country we have had this Government coming in and giving them tremendous easements.

The distilling industry should possibly be the second or third most important industry in this country. What was the position in regard to that? We had the Irish Pot Distillers' Association here for the past 30 years making absolutely no effort to break into the American or foreign market— not an attempt. I may say that I was the first Deputy in this House to spotlight the position. I went so far as to invite all these pot distillers to a meeting. Perhaps it was impertinent on my part to suggest such a thing. However, I suggested they should come together and see if they could get agreement as to putting all their resources together in order to get into the export market. I was told by them to mind my own business. Some went further. Yet these very people will get concessions in this Budget. They allowed the Scotch distillers to walk into the American market and build up a trade there worth £40,000,000 to Scotland while ours is worth approximately only £280,000 per annum to us. Nevertheless, in order to expand, these people will be given special facilities. I do not know where we will end.

It is a well-known fact that in many of these distilleries the guiding influence and the people who control them have no respect for Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or any Government in this country since 1922—none. Yet the Governments of this country are prepared to bow and scrape to these people. Facilities are being given to them and they are going to try to put on the American market a product that will get nowhere. However, I shall go into that matter in more detail on the Estimate for the Department of Industry and Commerce.

We have another section. I have said that the distilling industry, from the farming point of view, industrial point of view, employment point of view and the point of view of export possibilities is to my mind next to the cattle trade in importance, if developed. But developed it must be on the right lines.

Let us take another group—the car assemblers. I do not suggest that their business is in the same important sphere as the distilling industry. I do not want that even suggested. But here is what I can describe as a hot-house plant. These people give, I believe, pretty good employment here in Dublin. However, the main justification for their existence in this State is the employment they give. They have got special facilities under this Budget to keep up the employment. But, on the overall picture, who is subsidising them? Why was it necessary to remove the subsidy from bread, an essential foodstuff, and leave the subsidy there as it is in the Budget for the motor car assemblers, because that is where the subsidy is left? There is a subsidy for all these hot-house industries. The subsidy is there, hidden or otherwise. It is in the Budget. But the subsidy for the essentials of life for the community has been removed ruthlessly.

I do not think the Government have made any attempt to spread the hardships, even admitting that these hardships were necessary or that this finance had to be raised. I do not think they made anything like a careful and reasoned examination of them at all. I think it was a case of the easiest way out for them—of grabbing the handiest money and grabbing it from the easiest source. We know that if they had taken it from other sections of the community there would have been a howl from the various organisations and that pressure would have been brought to bear on the Cabinet. Naturally enough, taking it from the human point of view, it would be very hard for any Minister or the members of any Government to hit those closest to themselves.

The facilities in this Budget are given to one particular section in the community in the hope that these people will respond and expand. There is the hope that they will respond by getting further output, and, by further output, that they will get into the export market and thus help us to give more employment here at home. Of course, the object of getting more employment is highly desirable. It is absolutely essential. However, I have grave doubts that the methods which have been adopted will achieve that result. Instead of giving these facilities to these gentlemen, I think that if any facilities were being given they should have been given first of all to the real primary producer, that is, the farming section. In this Budget, the only aspect of agriculture which I see dealt with is in connection with the sum of £250,000 which is there in order to get markets abroad.

No matter what Senator Moylan, the Minister for Agriculture, may say, or, for that matter, no matter what any member of the former Government may say about the desirability of giving first-class facilities so far as the expansion of agriculture is concerned, when it comes down to practical matters such as facilities for expansion such facilities are not given to agriculture but to this sheltered industrial section. I think a fundamental reexamination must take place there. It is quite possible that, on examination of a lot of these so-called industries, it would be found that a certain justification could be given for the protection but I am quite sure that a number of them would go to the wall. However, it need not be necessary for them to go to the wall overnight so long as provision is made, while dealing with their position, to expand agriculture and industries based on agriculture. If you took the necessary steps in time to expand agriculture and to develop further industries based on the land you could absorb into those industries the people who might be displaced in the hot-house industrial concerns. Not alone would you absorb these people from industries which might not be able to hold their heads above water but you would also be able to absorb more and more from the present stream of emigrants.

There is no good in saying that since 1922 the position of the farming community and of the man in the street has improved in this country. In spite of the fact that the revolutionaries from 1916 to 1922 helped to change the Flag, to change the colour of the letter boxes, and so forth, the hard fact still remains that although the British gentry may have packed their bags here in 1921 and 1922 they were replaced by worse. The present-day snobocracy in the shape of company directors and sheltered hot-house industrialists who have taken over have left the ordinary man in such a position that he is worse now than the serf in feudal times. I need not go further than that. His position is more tragic than that of the feudal serf because the feudal serf had no say in his condition, had no recourse to a ballot box, had no means of improving his position. However, the ordinary man in the street to-day has the right to cast his vote in a secret manner and, by casting it, to select his Government. Is it any wonder that this new elite have nothing but contempt for the ordinary people when we see the results that come from the ballot boxes?

Since this State was formed a new set of parasites has been created. They have been allowed to rise up here while the fighting revolutionaries were dealing with the serious political problems. The tragedy of it is that the thinking men amongst the revolutionary group are gone from us. It would appear that many of those who were left thought purely in terms of political freedom in the sense that they thought that by changing the Flag and by having our own Army and so forth, in time things would improve. I regret that it would seem, looking back over the past 35 or 40 years, that no real thought was given by many of our honoured heroes as to what kind of social and economic structure would be set up here when political freedom was established.

I regret to have to say that. It is very hurtful to have to say that priority has been given all the time to this question of aping the outward symbols of power to be seen in great nations. We got the Flag changed and we proceeded then to set up a palatial establishment in the Park. To-day we have an Army composed of lieutenants-general, colonels and other high-ranking officers. We have some of the most luxurious embassies abroad trying to compete with countries that have material resources 1,000 times greater than our own. We have forgotten the fundamentals and concentrated on the external signs of freedom. Until there is a complete reorientation or change of mind in regard to that, I am afraid we shall get no cure for the ills that beset us in this country to-day.

It is very tragic to look back over the last 35 years and study the attempts made by the Irish people to assert themselves and to secure a change in the economic and social spheres. A number of steps forward were taken, then there was a marking-time and a stepping back. At the start, Cumann na nGaedheal got their opportunity in the social and economic spheres. Their record is best passed over; the least said about it the better. Then we got 16 or 17 years of Fianna Fáil. Now we hear about all the difficulties of that period. We had the economic war and the World War After that, we had the inter-Party Government coming along and we had the Korean war. There was always some misfortune, some excuse given by each Government which prevented them carrying out the great expansion they desired.

If you say so, Sir, I shall not pursue the matter further except to say that down through the years the Irish people tried the different political Parties in the hope that the necessary change would come. We have reached the stage now that you have certain sections of the community who say: "What is the use of supporting any of these Parties? Why recognise Dáil Éireann at all?" That is the serious situation emerging from this. The younger generation have lost hope or are beginning to lose hope in this establishment. I think that is a terrible tragedy. The political Parties may have been bad in the past. I agree they failed on many of the fundamental issues. That failure has given the opportunity to people outside the House to say that nothing can be done within the House and that steps should be taken outside. There is nothing in this Budget to counteract that type of propaganda, which is drawing new recruits into the ranks every day.

I do not like to pursue this, but I shall say a word on a matter that was discussed here and for which there is provision made in this Budget. I refer to Irish Shipping Limited. Certain facilities are being given here to Irish shipping. I am one of those who welcome any expansion in Irish shipping—I am sure most Deputies do—but I would like the Minister to tell us: Whither Irish shipping as far as this Budget is concerned? What is the aim? Is it the intention that we should provide money under this Budget to expand Irish shipping, so that ships under the Irish flag can be hired out to foreign countries to ply in world ports? Is it not a fact that at the moment many of our Irish ships have never seen an Irish port, except once in a blue moon? Is it not a fact that they are hired out to trade between other countries, chartered out to serve other nations? Is that the aim? Or will the aim be, as was originally intended, that Irish ships will serve first the needs of the Irish nation? I know perfectly well the profits to be made in hiring out our ships, but I think it is a very foolish policy on which to embark. It is a foolish programme to build Irish ships and hire them out to serve other countries, when, at the same time, we have such a dire shipping problem here in connection with our trading between Ireland, Britain and the Continent.

It is agreed that our cattle trade is our main source of income. That trade is to-day completely dependent on outside transport in order to reach the British market. We have no say in the transport of the produce of our main industry to British markets. What attempt has ever been made to solve that stranglehold by providing Irish ships? Was it ever intended that our ships would compete with British shipping in that regard?

Provision is made in this Budget to expand our agricultural market on the Continent. Have we the means by which increased production in agriculture can be transported to the Continent? Over the years, we have made a number of trade agreements with European countries whereunder we supply certain commodities to those countries and, in return, we take certain commodities from them. Has not the balance always been in favour of the other country? Have we ever been in a position to provide the necessary Irish transport to implement our bargain? No.

The time has come when we shall have to have a complete reorientation in our policy and outlook. Instead of thinking in terms of symbols of freedom, we shall have to get down to fundamentals. Deputy N. Browne asked a question as to the cost of embassies. Leaving out the question of cost altogether, I asked a question some six months ago as to what work these embassies were doing to expand Irish trade, with specific reference to agriculture. What did I find? I asked specifically how many men were engaged in London and in Paris solely for the purpose of expanding our agricultural trading—not, mark you, for expanding industrial trading. The answer given to me was that there was one man employed in the London Embassy and one man employed parttime in Paris. The population in Paris is such that, if our agricultural marketing people were in direct communication with their counterpart there, we could sell on the Paris market all the fat lambs produced in Ireland; but, in order to do that, we need transport facilities for direct contact and we need trading agencies between this country, France, the Continent generally and Britain. Instead of sending people abroad to represent us in cultural matters, quaffing champagne and eating caviare with the elite of the world, we should send representatives to sell our Irish agricultural produce. Emphasis should be on the export of agriculture rather than discussing pseudo-culture, about which many of them know nothing; many of them have to go to a public art gallery, or elsewhere, to see a picture.

As you, Sir, have seen fit to direct me on the particular matters that can be discussed, I bow to your ruling; but in conclusion, I want to suggest to the Government that it is not too late to reconsider and, even at this late stage, to make an alteration in the Budget proposals, in so far as bread and butter are concerned. I urgently appeal to them to listen to the people who represent the community, to listen to those who have their ear to the ground. If they do that, they will make no mistake because democracy, as such, should be Government for the people by the people themselves and not Government of the people by a little group who want to feather their own nest and improve their own condition.

The Budget presented here by the Minister has definitely been weighted in favour of a section of the community. I suggest to the Minister that it is not too late for him to reconsider the position with regard to bread and butter. In the course of the next 12 months, then, we can have any necessary reassessment with regard to capital expenditure, capital expenditure so essential if the twin evils of unemployment and emigration are to be cured in the lifetime of any member of this House.

Mr. Palmer

The stability secured by the inter-Party Government during their three difficult years of office is seriously threatened by the austerity of this Budget. We have in this Budget what I might call a carbon copy of the notorious Budget of 1952. In fact, the Minister for Finance may be regarded as an echo of his colleague, Deputy MacEntee, when he was Minister for Finance five years ago.

The abolition of the food subsidies is a wicked and serious action which will affect the vast majority of our people. This can really be regarded as a Tory Budget because of its serious implications and the results which are likely to follow. It could also be called a rich man's Budget. There are certain provisions in it for the removal of the import levies on television sets, radios and high powered cars, whereas the removal of the subsidies on foodstuffs will seriously affect the living standards of the ordinary individual. It is certainly not a poor man's Budget.

The Minister for Finance and his colleagues appear to have taken the easy way out in their endeavour to do away with the deficit that existed. The Budget may be regarded as a lazy man's Budget. The Minister simply slashed the food subsidies and imposed taxation on petrol, tobacco and beer. These appear to be the usual commodities affected whenever money is required. It is a wonder there was not also an increase in income-tax.

The removal of the subsidies must seriously affect the living standards of our people. These food subsidies can, in a sense, be taken as items which will help in production because of their value in maintaining increased prices for wheat and some other commodities. They also played their part in stabilising wages. The inter-Party Government, during its period of office, by maintaining these subsidies, helped to stabilise wages. That stability is now threatened by the Government's action. Anybody can foresee that organised workers will look for an increase in wages in order to make up for the increased prices of essential foodstuffs.

The abolition of the subsidies also hits the business man, especially small shopkeepers and the white collar workers. These are the people who will suffer most because they have no organisations through which to recoup themselves in any way for the increased costs of these commodities. If it was considered good economy to abolish these subsidies, surely it would have been less harmful to do it piecemeal rather than abolish them all at once. Not only will there be claims for increased wages by organised workers but the present social benefits will be regarded as entirely inadequate to meet the increased cost of living.

Apart from this increased taxation and these increased prices of foodstuffs affecting the people, they will also affect local authorities, because local authority employees will be seeking increased wages. Hospitals and various other institutions of local authorities will cost more, so that this increase in taxation will cause a further rise in the rates.

The Tánaiste, during the election campaign and even since, had plans by which £100,000,000 would be made available to employ 100,000 workers. We hear nothing of these plans now. It was good propaganda during election time, and we have already heard quotations from speakers during the election campaign in connection with subsidies. It is rather peculiar that somewhat similar speeches were made during the 1951 election campaign in connection with the penal taxes imposed by the Fianna Fáil Budget of 1947. The Tanaiste, stated in Cork on 12th May, 1951, as reported in the Sunday Press of 13th May, 1951:—

"A Coalition Minister has said that Fianna Fáil if elected would increase the taxes on beer and tobacco. Why should such taxes be necessary? There is no such reason why we should reimpose these taxes."

Well, they were reimposed in the Budget of 1952. On 15th May, 1951 the Minister for Health stated in Rath-mines Town Hall, as reported in the Irish Independent of 16th May:—

"A number of persons in the licensed trade were spreading a rumour that Fianna Fáil if returned to power, would reimpose the tax on drink which was imposed by the Supplementary Budget of 1947. There is no truth in such a rumour."

These taxes were reimposed in the Budget of 1952. It is very difficult to see how we can trust the statements of all these Fianna Fáil Ministers or ex-Ministers. We had a similar procedure during the last election campaign when the Tanaiste at Waterford on 28th February, 1957 stated, as reported in the Irish Press, 1st March:—

"Some Coalition leaders are threatening the country with all sorts of unpleasant things if Fianna Fáil becomes the Government—compulsory tillage, wage control, cuts in Civil Service salaries, higher food prices and a lot more besides. A Fianna Fáil Government does not intend to do any of these things because we do not believe in them."

That is of course, they do not believe in higher food prices.

"How definite can we make our denial of these stupid allegations? They are all falsehoods."

Yet, we now have higher prices for essential foodstuffs as a result of this Budget.

On the same day, on 28th February, 1957, the Taoiseach stated in Belmullet:—

"The Coalition Parties were urging the people not to vote for Fianna Fáil because there was hell around the Fianna Fáil corner. You know the record of Fianna Fáil in the past you know we have never done the things they said we would do. They have told you that you would be paying more for your bread. They do not say that it was as a result of a legacy in the shape of a £62,000,000 deficit in our international balance of payments and a Budget deficit of £15,000,000 from them that bread was increased before...."

He said:—

"We did not cut them all out because we did not want the price of bread—so important an article of diet for the poor—to be increased."

Now it has been increased by the slashing of the subsidies on bread and flour, after all the more or less similar statements made by the leading members of the Fianna Fáil Government. We have the statements made in the 1951 election campaign and made in 1952. Here is something else, a statement by Deputy Mrs. Lynch on 22nd February, 1957, during the election campaign:—

"A Fianna Fáil Government is the housewife's choice. It must be; there is no alternative. The housewife, the mother of a family, has been the greatest victim of Coalition bungling. Housewives, use your intelligence, your practical experience and your sound reasoning. Vote in strength for the Fianna Fáil candidates."

I wonder what they think now, if they remember that statement of Deputy Mrs. Lynch, who is a member of the Fianna Fáil Party.

Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted, and 20 Deputies being present,

Mr. Palmer

The removal of these subsidies on essential foodstuffs is a matter of great importance to the constituency I represent along the western seaboard, because in those areas no wheat is grown, whereas in the Midlands and in the eastern counties, the farmers grow their wheat and therefore they can grind it and have it for their own use, as well as for sale. The removal of the subsidies on bread and flour in their case will not be as serious as it would be for those along the western seaboard.

The removal of the butter subsidy is also bound to have a serious effect in Kerry and other counties. For instance, in my county, 95 per cent. of the people qualify for all the benefits to be derived under the Health Act; one can see how the increased prices of butter and flour will affect people in the western areas much more than in the East and Midlands. The increased price of butter will certainly result in our having a large surplus. What are we to do with that surplus? We must really pay the foreigner to eat our butter. It would be better to subsidise butter so that our own people could use it instead of having to buy margarine, all the ingredients of which have to be imported, thus adversely affecting our balance of payments.

The Minister is allowing £250,000 for the improvement of marketing arrangements for our agricultural produce, but at the same time he removed the £352,000 payable to creameries for the cold storage of butter. That meant a further increase of 2d. a lb. on butter, making the price 4/4 instead of 4/2 per lb. In order to help in some way to meet the increases caused by the removal of the subsidies, some increased benefits were granted to certain people, such as old age pensioners and those in receipt of non-contributory widows' pensions and unemployment benefits, but surely an increase of 1/– for old age pensioners does not in any way compensate them for the increased cost of living. It is not even 2d. per day.

One can imagine how the ordinary working man will be affected by the increase of 1d. on the pint. When his day's work is over, he likes to have a pint and suppose, on an average, he has two pints a day for seven days of the week. We can see that any benefits he may derive from the increased children's allowances, for instance, will be spent in that way. The increased benefits will not make up for the increased cost of living and therefore the standard of living of all such people will be lower.

The increase of 6d. a gallon in petrol will have serious implications so far as agricultural people, and in fact people generally are concerned, because petrol is now required by almost all types of people, professional, agricultural and commercial. Increases in this way will mean that industrialists will have to face higher costs in connection with the distribution of their goods. Therefore, it will mean an increase in production costs and an increase in wages, and so on, for their employees.

The inter-Party Government were in office in three of the most difficult years, I should think, since the State was established and yet, when they left office, they had overcome the various difficulties. One of the means by which they brought about stability was the maintenance of these subsidies. In addition, they brought about an equilibrium in the balance of trade by means of the import levies. The import levies may have caused a certain amount of unemployment, but they did good in other ways. They did good to the country as a whole, so much so that, when the inter-Party Government left office, the adverse trade balance had been reduced by £24,500,000. In fact, complete equilibrium had been achieved.

The new Government is entering on a period when everything should be more pleasant for them and they can carry on without all the difficulties the past Government had to face. It is rather peculiar, therefore, that the Tanaiste should remove the levies on luxury goods. One would think that, if anything, he would remove the levies on other commodities which may be of some benefit to the ordinary people. The removal of the levies on television sets appears to be ridiculous in a sense, because we have no television service in this country and, in view of our financial position, will not have it for many years to come.

Everything that could be said against this Budget and anything that could be said in its favour has been said already. There is no use in my prolonging the discussion, but I will say that the Budget has come as a shock to the people. It was not right or just that the subsidies should be removed without having let the people know during the election that Fianna Fáil intended to remove them. I could guarantee that, if there were a general election in the morning, Fianna Fáil would not be returned with an overall majority, that they would lose many seats. Of course, their leaders are good politicians. Perhaps their idea is that, by imposing extra taxation now, removing the subsidies and scourging the people in the manner they have done, they will be enabled, as years go on, to have a bigger surplus and, when the next general election takes place, will be able to increase benefits and reduce taxation in the belief that the people, being very gullible, will forget the past and will again vote Fianna Fáil. I doubt if that will happen, but that could be the idea.

The Fianna Fáil Party are really playing politics instead of statesmanship. There were various other ways by which they could raise the necessary £9,000,000 to balance the Budget. Neither the Minister nor the Government devoted any time to thinking out a plan as to how that could be done. They simply slashed the subsidies and imposed taxation on the commodities nearest to hand—the usual game. The position is serious for the ordinary person in this country. It is very serious for the ordinary working man with a large family. I am perfectly certain that, as we on this side of the House are not satisfied with the position that has arisen as a result of the Budget, those on the opposite side feel still worse about it, especially when they meet their constituents down the country.

Mr. Gallagher

Deputy Palmer finished by suggesting that we were playing politics. When the Minister for Finance finished his Budget statement, we heard the replies from the former Taoiseach and the former Minister for Industry and Commerce, and then we saw the reception the Budget got from our leading newspapers. The leading articles in most, if not all, of them and in the provincial papers also, spoke well of the Budget.

I think that came as a disappointment to some people on the other side of the House and it strikes me that they decided then to play a bit of politics and they looked for all the adjectives they could get to describe the Budget—hairshirt, harsh and all the other adjectives they used in 1952. They did that because they were disappointed by the reception the Budget got, especially from some of the papers that always supported the Coalition Government. It will be agreed that the Budget did get a good reception from the national dailies.

I have listened to quite a number of speeches in this debate and am more than satisfied that the majority of the speakers agree with the principle of a balanced Budget and the soundness of that principle. In fairness to the leaders on the other side of the House I must say they agreed that the principle was very sound and its adoption most essential to get us out of our present difficulties.

We could ask the question: what is wrong with the principle of having our yearly outgoings met by yearly income? That is a fair question. Anyone with any sense of responsibility will cut out all this nonsense of describing the Budget as a hairshirt Budget, a harsh Budget and all the rest, by answering that question. In our ordinary life, we adopt that principle. Why not adopt it here? Why, then, criticise the Minister and try to create friction and trouble when he and his colleagues make an effort to carry out that principle? It amazes me at times to hear people, who in their hearts know that what they are saying is not correct, saying things because they are forced to say them because, as Deputy Palmer said, it is playing politics.

The Minister disclosed in his Budget statement, and the Taoiseach also referred to it, that the Government were left with an unbalanced Budget to the tune of £8,000,000. There is no denying that, no matter what the people on the opposite side may say. The facts are there and very few Deputies on the other side have told us how we were to bridge that gap. We have heard Deputy Palmer and others say that we should not have removed the levies on motor cars and television sets. Would it not be better if they would tell us exactly what revenue we would get from those levies? Would it be £8,000,000? Would it bridge that gap?

Mr. O'Sullivan

It would pay the butter subsidy.

Mr. Gallagher

It would pay Deputies better if instead of quoting what people said during the election they got down to figures and found out if the levies would bridge the gap. It would have been very interesting indeed to hear what taxes they would impose to bridge that gap. Was it wrong to remove the levies on oranges and fruit? We know that in Dublin there was a big protest about that levy. The tax on oranges was certainly wrong.

Mr. Rooney

It made no difference; oranges are still just as dear. Who is getting the money now?

Mr. Gallagher

Mr. McGilligan

They were looking for the Deputy the other night.

Mr. Gallagher

Deputy Larkin was also in the group and I think he will agree with me that, while the majority of them had husbands who were unemployed, they did state that if their husbands had work they certainly would not be pressing matters as they were pressing them at the moment. One woman whose husband was working in England, made it clear that by reason of the fact that he was sending some money home she was not in the same position as the other women whose husbands were not employed. They made it clear that if their husbands were employed and they had a weekly wage coming in they would not be looking upon things as harshly as they were. The primary purpose of this Budget is to procure employment and then the problem of these people will be removed.

Mr. Larkin

Did they——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Larkin may not ask a question. Deputy Gallagher is in possession and Deputy Larkin will get a chance to speak later.

Mr. Rooney

Had the wives any posters with them?

Mr. Gallagher

These people were very fair and their whole case was: "Give us work." Their whole case was that if they had a proper wage they would not look upon this Budget in so harsh a light. Where they have no weekly wage coming in they have every reason to consider that it is difficult to make ends meet, despite the fact that they are getting some compensatory allowances. If the Budget makes some contribution towards increasing employment, it will be doing very well indeed.

However, if there is an attempt by any person or group of persons to create friction now and to start any sort of trouble, they are refusing to give the necessary co-operation in the difficult task which the Coalition members admit exists and would exist, even if they were in Government. Fianna Fáil are in Government now. They have been only two months in office and surely they should be given some time to solve these problems.

I agree with the Minister for Lands that our home market has become much too small and that we should go all out for exports on a substantial scale. I agree with him, also, that there should be production inducements, so that employers can increase workers' wages in order that the workers may be able to meet increased food prices. We must be honest and endeavour to make every possible effort to achieve increased production so that there will be inducements to employers to increase wages. I certainly would like to see workers getting sufficient money, not alone to meet their commitments properly but to save a little as well. That is not easy. If we go all out for the export market on a very large scale, we should be able to give inducements by way of higher production to increase workers' wages. I do not agree with all this talk about holding wages down. What I want to see is increased production and consequent increases in wages.

I have nothing more to say except to express the hope that this Budget will put the country on a firm basis so that we can reduce the unemployment and emigration figures. We must all make honest endeavours to achieve these aims. It is unfair and uncalled for to say that we on this side of the House set out deliberately to hurt the Irish people, that we are being unnecessarily harsh and severe. Such statements are unfair in view of the past records of our Ministers. They constitute what I would call playing politics. They are dishonest politics and unfair tactics.

Mr. Desmond

When speaking here last evening, a member of the Government Party made a passing remark on the speech of a new member of the House, Deputy Miss Hogan. He commented that she had apparently not got the usual Party propaganda literature to use in condemnation of the Budget. In my opinion, he made one mistake; he forgot that in the very able way in which she spoke on the subject, she explained, as only a woman can, the problems confronting the most important section of the community as far as the Budget proposals are concerned—the woman in the home.

We should always remember the importance of a balanced budget in the homes of our people and surely, if more attention had been given to the remarks of this new Deputy, perhaps some of the old hoary ideas in relation to the balancing of the national Budget might have been changed somewhat. Whether we like it or not, we cannot discuss this Budget without making some comparisons between it and the Budget of 12 months ago. I do not propose to be hard on some of the members of the Government and I will not quote from statements they made last year. I shall content myself with saying that I believe what they did say last year was meant by them. They thought at that time that what they said in relation to proposed or suggested new burdens was correct.

Let us consider some of these statements in the light of the proposals enshrined in the present Budget. Last year, one Fianna Fáil Deputy from the West of Ireland stated that the petrol tax would play havoc with the people in the West who made their livelihood by selling turf. At that time, and even now, I feel sure he thought he was correct in thus sizing up the situation. What about the turf cutters in the West of Ireland now? What have our friends from the north-west to say now about petrol prices? Last year, there was great play made of the increased cost of transport, due to the increased price of petrol. Perhaps now they will agree with something the Minister for Lands then said—that any statement made by a Deputy in this House would bear revision in years to come. I suggest that many of the Deputies opposite should go to the Library for a good read, that they should read some of the statements they made last year.

They had a lot to say then about the increase of a ½d. in the price of a box of matches. According to them then, the people of rural Ireland were to be left in perpetual darkness because the then Government found it necessary to increase the price of matches by a ½d. a box. I believe that the Taoiseach should instil in the minds of the members of his Party the importance of being sensible. They should not be satisfied just to follow the leader, refusing to exercise their God-given right to examine the economic problems at present confronting the country and each individual in it.

I did not intend to pick out any juicy pieces which I could throw at them but I believe it is important that we should draw particular attention to some of the statements made by our leading or elder statesmen including the Tanaiste. He was in bad humour 12 months ago but he was sitting on this side of the House and apparently it makes a vast difference when a member sits on one side of the House or on the other. Last year, as reported at column 49 of the Official Debates of the 8th May he asked: "Will their answer be to laugh at them because they were such fools as to believe them?" He wanted to know whether the members of the Government and those supporting the Government would laugh at the people because, as he stated, the people were such fools as to believe in them. Whom do they believe now? Who are fooling the people now?

Furthermore, Deputy Gallagher is interested in a certain sport but I did not know until last year that the present Tanaiste was a great follower of the fistic art. He went so far as to say that the Government had thrown in the towel completely in relation to the cost of living. All of us remember his frothing from the mouth because, as he said, the Government had thrown in the towel in relation to the cost of living. What has happened since? Apparently he has wrapped the towel around himself and he is cooling down because he finds himself in a different position in the same Chamber.

I thought, having regard to the responsible position the Tanaiste holds, that he went to the limit when he could not control himself and termed the Government and those supporting the Government at that time as being a pack of "phonies." That may be a common expression in Dublin but it is not a very pleasant one for a responsible statesman to use. He called the members of the Government at that time a pack of "phonies" because he maintained, they were responsible not only for an increase in the price of petrol but for an overall increase—not alone in respect of the few items mentioned in last year's Budget but in regard to every item that would have to be purchased by the housewives throughout the country. His complaint then was the credit squeeze but the credit squeeze is still on, I am afraid.

Another complaint of the present Tanaiste was the increase of ½d. to 1d. at that time in the price of mineral waters. Apparently he was horrified by the savage brutality of the Minister for Finance 12 months ago with the able support of all members of the Government in increasing the price per bottle of mineral waters so that, he said, every little child in the country would die of thirst last summer. That did not happen.

He was ably supported by another member of the Government and may I say that I am somewhat surprised that this member has not graced the House with his appearance to defend the present Minister and lecture everybody concerned in his usual manner? I refer to the present Minister for Health. What was his complaint last year? Deputy Gallagher said—and I believe he means what he said—that he would not wish to see the workers on a lower wage rate. Does Deputy Gallagher know that sitting in one of these benches last year the present Minister for Health, then Deputy MacEntee, complained that, owing to the high wage structure, the commercial banks were suffering from pernicious anaemia? According to the present Minister for Health, the cause of all our troubles last year was the high wage structure.

We will have to take particular note of the statements of the present Tanaiste, ably backed up by other speakers on that side, who are trying to get it across to the public through the newspapers that the country is endangered if the workers say they want something to meet the increased cost of living. The Minister for Health could never be outdone in some of the famous statements he makes here. Last year one of the most outrageous statements ever made by a Deputy in opposition in relation to the fiscal policy of a Government was made by the then Deputy MacEntee.

He had three complaints against the Government. He said that the matter was common knowledge throughout the city but he was cute enough not to say who was making it common knowledge. His complaints were that some Ministers of the inter-Party Government were threatening to bulldoze the banks into bankruptcy if they did not give the Government the money they wanted. That was one of the statements spread over the City of Dublin.

Another little bird whispered to Deputy MacEntee, as he then was, that while some Ministers were going on in this disgraceful manner apparently more of them were putting as much pressure as possible on the insurance companies. I know that the present Front Bench will not put any pressure on the insurance companies.

The third complaint—the most serious and the most damaging of all to economic recovery in this country— was made by the Minister for Health when he said that there were widespread rumours and widespread apprehensions about the suggested possibility of the removal of Post Office savings for Government purposes. Yet we are now told that the member who made these statements is supposed to be a responsible member of a responsible Government dishing out to the people under this Budget the severest attacks ever made on the people in rural Ireland.

Twelve months ago the Tanaiste stated that the increase in petrol at that time was the highest single increase ever imposed, but does it differ from his own increase on this occasion? If it was so severe last year, surely they should be the last to put a further tax on a commodity which, according to the Tanaiste, had already been so severely overtaxed. We remember the determined opposition put up by the Tanaiste 12 months ago when he was fighting, as it were, a losing battle in this Chamber against. to use his own words, a lot of "phonies". He was fighting on behalf of the people of Dublin and every part of the Twenty-Six Counties, determined that he would not throw in the towel, but that he would fight to the end to cut down the cost of living. He said that they promised to make some effort to stop the cost of living going up still further. The cost of living has gone up a lot further now than during the past 12 months. It is quite true that the problem confronting the working people of this country has been the cost of living, coupled with the fact that the wage rates, instead of being, as the Minister for Health thinks they are, a high wage structure, are, in my opinion, a low wage structure in many industries.

In 1952, butter was 2/8 a lb. After roughly one hour's speech in the month of May, 1952, made by the Minister for Health, who was then Minister for Finance, it was decided that to counteract the high wage structure, butter would be increased in price from 2/8 to 3/10 per lb. He made sure on that occasion that the housewife would pay 9d. instead of 6½d. for the 2-lb. loaf. It was also decided that the people, having the advantage of a high wage structure, should be made to pay more for tea and he increased the price from 2/8 to ? per lb. It is strange to relate that the next sudden jump in the price of butter and bread, vitally important items in the lives of the people, had to wait until May, 1957, when the same man occupied the Front Bench of Government in this House.

If anyone still tries to persevere with the line that the inter-Party Government should be damned for all time, owing to the increases imposed on some of these items during their period in office, I suggest to him that he should forget that Fianna Fáil ever formed a Government in this country.

Mr. O'Sullivan

The people will not forget it.

Mr. Donnellan

They cannot forget it.

Mr. Desmond

The present Minister for Health, 12 months ago, complained that, owing apparently to the irresponsibility of the inter-Party Government, the increase in national capital in 1950 amounted to only 5 per cent. of the gross national proceeds, to roughly £27,000,000. How could it be otherwise when a responsible person such as he was went around whispering that Government Ministers were preparing to burrow into the banks and that Post Office savings were to be tampered with? Surely all these contributory factors, brought together, must show what is one of the outstanding features of irresponsibility in public life, because of desire for office, coupled with the dismay caused by having to sit in opposition, which seems to have interfered with the national outlook of some people in this country, and for which we have suffered. I am not speaking as a politician, saying that any Party has suffered, but the country has suffered. The people will know in future years where to lay the blame in relation to what has happened.

In all their criticisms, these members conveniently forget to admit one important fact. Each and every one of us knows that, because of the geographical position of this country, we have little or no control over the price of imported raw materials or over the price of exports in the international markets. If we take the figures, as based on the March-April period of 1952, of the price of imported raw materials and compare them with the prices in the autumn of 1954, what do we find? In March and April, when the inter-Party Government were in office, import prices over which we all know the Government had no control, were at the very high figure of 193 points. In 1954, when the inter-Party Government were in power, and again had no control over these prices, they had dropped from 193 points to 136. Surely then if there was an advantage at all in relation to the import prices index in that time, it must have run in favour of a Government that had no control over these prices. If members wish, they can check these figures, but remember that at no time were the inter-Party Government or the Fianna Fáil Government able to take any control over prices of raw material imports.

Have we control over export prices? Each and every one of us knows that the answer is no. We hear a lot about the question of balancing the Budget, but it is very well for some people to note that in this morning's Irish Press there is a very important headline: “Adverse Balance Now Halved.” How has it been halved? It has not been halved through the activities of the present Government.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Hear, hear!

Mr. Desmond

Nobody can say that. In the Irish Press, it states that, despite steeply rising import prices, imports dropped to £47,000,000 and also —this is the important fact—at the same time, export prices were lower than in the first quarters of 1955 and 1956, but exports rose to £32,000,000. That surely must mean, as it says in the Irish Press, that cattle exports constituted 72 per cent. of the overall increase in exports. That is not a matter of three months' work here. Does anyone suggest that it was only since Fianna Fáil came into office on 20th March that that huge increase in the number of live stock available for sale was achieved?

Twelve months ago, another Deputy joined the Tanaiste in a chorus of protests. In his own sincere way, I presume, this Deputy pointed out the terrible future that was facing the young lover. He gave us a terribly dark view in relation to the little pleasures of the young lover. He said he could see what was going to happen after the passage of last year's Budget. He pointed out that the young man would have to pay more to bring his young lady to a dance. He also said that, if they had not bicycles and were not in humour for walking, the young man would be obliged, owing to the increase in petrol prices, to pay more for the bus ride home. He further pointed out that if the young couple sat out a dance and had a mineral each the young man would have to pay an increased price for the minerals. To sum it all up, the Deputy in question termed last year's Budget a "kill-joy Budget." It is a damn good job that that Deputy got his two months' holiday before the introduction of the present murder-the-people Budget.

It was very easy for a Deputy who was in opposition 12 months ago to raise a hue and cry about the "terrible situation" then prevailing in relation to the housing of the Dublin people— but the people in Dublin were in need of housing for the past two months also. The present Minister for Health found it suitable 12 months ago to castigate Ministers of the then Government for going to other countries. Apparently it is a case of "I can do as I like but you dare not do anything but what I like you to do."

Mr. Hughes

There is not a word out of them now.

Mr. Desmond

Not a word. A friend of mine who is now on the Government Benches was the only man who hit the nail on the head. Maybe he did not think that things would happen so quickly but, in his speech last year from the Opposition Benches, he uttered three very important words. Now, looking back over the past 12 months, that friend of mine must admit, in the light of the present situation, the importance of his statement that "Honesty will prevail." Deputy J. Brennan said that 12 months ago. Honesty will prevail—but when? That is the question.

It may be of some interest to try to pull away a little from the situation of 12 months ago and consider it in the light of some of the statements made at the present time. One new member in this House struck a different note from that sounded by many members of the Government Party. I am afraid his voice is added to the increasing number of conservative voices that seem to be making themselves heard in the Government Party. I do not believe for a moment that the rank and file of the Government Party—the men from rural Ireland—are, at heart, in any way conservative. However, as Deputy Dr. Browne said yesterday—I mentioned it long before that—it would seem that the minority are controlling the majority.

Deputy Booth, a new member of this House, went so far as to suggest the abolition of income-tax and the introduction of a purchase tax. Who will gain by that? Who will lose by it?

Mr. Hughes

Not Deputy Booth.

Mr. Desmond

Consider a man with £5,000 or £10,000 a year. What purchases would he have to make in order to keep going? I suggest he would not have many purchases to make. The human being can go only to a certain stage in wishing to get things to keep him going. Therefore, the purchase tax which Deputy Booth would like to introduce would impose a very small burden on a man with £10,000 a year. What about the man who is rearing a young family whether in Dublin City or elsewhere in the country? Consider the overall purchases of his family. I believe suggestions are creeping into this House which, in themselves, are views expressed by people who believe in a solid Tory outlook in political endeavour in this country.

Deputy Booth went further. He made another statement which, to say the least of it, is appalling. On Tuesday, 14th May, as reported in the Official Report, Volume 161, No. 9, Deputy Booth, who was arguing that the Minister had done his best—perhaps, from their point of view, he did —stated: "...the Minister has spread the load most heavily on those who can bear it best." Do they believe that? Are we supposed to believe that the removal of the subsidies, which has imposed an added burden on the community——

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Thursday, 23 May 1957

Committee on Finance. - Resolution No. 5—General (Resumed).

A Deputy

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 23 May 1957