Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 12 Mar 1958

Vol. 166 No. 1

Committee on Finance. - Motion by Minister for Finance.

Minister for Finance (Dr. Ryan)

I move:—

That a sum not exceeding £36,500,000 be granted on account for or towards defraying the Charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959, for certain public services, namely:—

		£
1	President's Establishment	2,780
2	Houses of the Oireachtas	78,500
3	Department of the Taoiseach	8,900
4	Central Statistics Office	55,000
5	Comptroller and Auditor General	11,650
6	Office of the Minister for Finance	57,100
7	Office of the Revenue Commissioners	670,000
8	Office of Public Works	186,000
9	Public Works and Buildings	1,187,000
10	Employment and Emergency Schemes	275,000
11	Management of Government Stocks	58,950
12	State Laboratory	8,700
13	Civil Service Commission	20,000
14	An Chomhairle Ealaíon	6,500
15	Commissions and Special Inquiries	2,400
16	Superannuation and Retired Allowances	349,000
17	Secret Service	2,000
18	Expenses under the Electoral Act and the Juries Act	—
19	Supplementary Agricultural Grants	1,200,000
20	Law Charges	39,500
21	Miscellaneous Expenses	5,500
22	Stationery Office	211,850
23	Valuation and Boundary Survey	27,160
24	Ordnance Survey	25,850
25	Rates on Government Property	10,000
26	Agriculture	3,170,000
27	Office of the Minister for Justice	32,510
28	Garda Síochána	1,602,380
29	Prisons	58,910
30	District Court	29,990
31	Circuit Court	41,350
32	Supreme Court and High Court of Justice	34,220
33	Land Registry and Registry of Deeds	36,420
34	Public Record Office	3,130
35	Charitable Donations and Bequests	2,030
36	Local Government	1,510,000
37	Office of the Minister for Education	127,000
38	Primary Education	3,170,000
39	Secondary Education	450,000
40	Technical Instruction	590,000
41	Science and Art	60,000
42	Reformatory and Industrial Schools	125,000
43	Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies	37,000
44	Universities and Colleges	320,000
45	National Gallery	3,810
46	Lands	861,970
47	Forestry	614,500
48	Fisheries	64,600
49	Roinn na Gaeltachta	250,000
50	Industry and Commerce	528,000
51	Transport and Marine Services	1,263,000
52	Aviation and Meteorological Services	177,000
53	Industrial and Commercial Property Registration Office	9,190
54	Tourism	147,000
55	Posts and Telegraphs	3,236,000
56	Wireless Broadcasting	145,500
57	Defence	2,069,520
58	Army Pensions	551,580
59	External Affairs	137,950
60	International Co-operation	38,000
61	Office of the Minister for Social Welfare	156,900
62	Social Insurance	1,417,000
63	Social Assistance	6,853,000
64	Health	2,060,000
65	Dundrum Asylum	16,200
66	Repayment of Trade Loans Advances	—
	TOTAL	£36,500,000

The Vote on Account is an annual feature of our financial system and, as the name implies, represents a provision on account—usually a four months' provision—towards the cost of expenditure on the Supply Services during the next financial year. The four months' period covered by the Vote on Account is normally adequate for the House to consider the individual Estimates and to pass the Appropriation Act.

The Vote on Account is based on the detailed estimates of public expenditure set out in the Volume of Estimates for the year 1958-59, which has recently been circulated. The amount of the Vote on Account I am now asking for is £36,500,000, that is, roughly one-third of the total Estimates for the Supply Services, 1958-59. The items covered by the Vote are set out on the Order Paper. As Deputies are aware, the Dáil grants supply only for the service of a particular financial year and consequently moneys granted by the Central Fund and Appropriation Acts are available for use only in the year for which they are granted. In order, therefore, that Government services should not be without finance after the 31st March, it is necessary for the Dáil to pass the Vote on Account.

Turning to the Estimates Volume, Deputies will have noted that the total of the Estimates for the Supply Services for the coming year is £110,002,220. Last year the total of the Estimates in the Volume came to £112,570,620. Revised Estimates subsequently passed to take account of the abolition of the food subsidies and other matters, brought this total down to £106,196,620 but the addition by way of Supplementary Estimate of £2,023,000 mainly for the increases in social assistance payments granted to compensate for the abolition of the food subsidies put it up again to £108,219,620. Compared with this latter figure the 1958-59 total shows an increase of £1,782,600 and when capital items are segregated, the provision for non-capital services shows an increase of roughly £500,000.

While the variations as compared with 1957-58 will be apparent from a perusal of the Estimates Volume, it may be helpful if I refer briefly to the major changes which are revealed. I shall do so without distinguishing between capital and other items, except to refer to items not hiterto described as capital.

The chief increases are in the Estimate for Agriculture which is up by over £2,500,000. As Deputies will observe, an additional £1,115,950 gross is being provided next year for the bovine tuberculosis eradication scheme. When account is taken of receipts from the sale of cows slaughtered under the scheme the net additional sum for which provision is made comes to £489,250. I know that Deputies on all sides of the House will welcome the decision to provide additional moneys for this scheme and will lose no opportunity to impress upon those directly concerned the desirability both in their own interests and in the interests of the country of co-operating to the fullest extent in the eradication of bovine tuberculosis. The allocation in the American Grant Counterpart Special Account from which expenditure has been recouped in recent years is now exhausted. As the expenditure is necessary to preserve our productive capacity and external earnings power, and must be concentrated in a short period of years, it is proposed to treat it henceforth as a capital item. The amortisation arrangements attached to "capital services" provide for redemption of the relevant borrowing over a period of 30 years.

The amounts provided for the subsidisation of bacon and butter exports are up by £580,000 and £734,000, respectively, as compared with the original provision for the current year. As Deputies are aware, however, from the Supplementary Estimate for Agriculture which is at present before the House, substantial supplementary sums will have to be provided in the current year in respect of bacon and butter exports.

Losses arising from the disposal of surplus native wheat by export and by sale as animal feed, etc., require the provision of an additional £650,000 next year, while an extra £140,000 is being sought in respect of grants for the pasteurisation of separated milk.

A lump sum provision of £250,000 in the current year as a grant-in-aid of the marketing of agricultural produce does not require to be repeated in 1958-59.

The use of ground limestone continues to increase—it has risen from 75,000 tons per annum to a current figure of about 1,250,000 tons—and the indications are that farmers now fully realise the beneficial effects which accrue for its use. The scheme by which ground limestone was delivered free to farmers was one which up to this had the benefit of American Grant moneys. These were exhausted in the course of 1957-58 and subsidy could be continued at the full rate only with heavy recourse to the Exchequer. In these circumstances, it was reasonable to expect farmers to make a modest contribution towards the delivery costs. Despite this contribution, the net charge to the Exchequer in 1958-59 will be up by £270,000 as compared with 1957-58.

The provision for the farm buildings scheme and water supplies shows a reduction of over £140,000 which, however, is attributable in the main to over-estimation in the amount provided in the current year.

In the Estimate for Industry and Commerce, sub-head J (1) shows a reduction of over £1.9 million, being the amount paid our during the period in 1957-58 when flour and bread subsidies were in operation. On the other hand the provisions for Industrial Grants, in sub-heads O (4) and Q (1), show a combined increase of £100,000. It will be observed from the Capital Services Summary at the front of the Estimates Volume that the provision for these grants will be treated as a capital service in the coming year. They, in fact, constitute part of the new capital invested in industrial production.

In the Estimate for Transport and Marine Services the amount provided for C.I.E. shows an increase of £358,000 as compared with the original provision for 1957-58. A Supplementary Estimate for £2,000,000 was, however, necessary in the current year and, when account is taken of this, the provision for C.I.E. shows a decrease of £1,642,000. Last year's figure included an exceptional non-recurrent provision of £803,000 for repayment of a temporary advance and also various capital payments which will not arise in 1958-59. As is explained in a footnote to the Estimate, next year's provision is intended to be adequate to enable C.I.E. to pay all interest on Transport Stocks without seeking any advance from the Exchequer under Section 30 of the Transport Act, 1950. The provision for the G.N.R. shows a reduction of £345,000 as compared with the original provision for this year. Savings of £185,000 are expected in the current year, thus reducing the decrease to £160,000.

In the Vote for Aviation and Meteorological Services an extra £264,000 is being provided for constructional works, etc., at the Shannon, Dublin and Cork Airports. Telephone Capital Repayments in the Vote for Posts and Telegraphs show an increase of £100,240. The Estimate for Social Insurance shows an increase of £596,000 as compared with the original provision for the current year but if account is taken of the Supplementary Estimate for £872,000 which has passed the Dáil, the provision shows a reduction of £276,000. This reduction is partly due to the fact that the influenza epidemic which occurred in the course of the current year resulted in abnormally high payments of disability benefit and partly to the expectation that the recent improved trend in unemployment will continue. The provision for Social Assistance shows a small decrease of £1,000 when compared with the original provision for the current year plus the Supplementary Estimate which was necessary last week in consequence mainly of the increased rates in certain Social Services following on the abolition of the food subsidies.

The post-war backlog of private housing has now been worked off and applications for grants for private housing have fallen. The amount required for this purpose in 1958-59 is down by £700,000.

The Forestry Estimate shows a net reduction of £36,450. This does not mean a reduction in forestry operations. The acreage planted in 1958-59 will, in fact, show an increase and an additional £50,000 has been provided for the acquisition of land but, thanks to various steps taken to promote efficiency and economy, a reduction in the total cost has been found possible.

In the Estimate for Defence the provision for defensive equipment is reduced by £164,134, while in the Estimate for Public Works and Buildings £161,200 less than in the current year is provided for new works, alterations and additions. The provision for supplementary agricultural grants is down by £140,000 because the current year's provision was based on estimated rates which, in the event, proved to be too high.

I think that is sufficient as a general indication of the changes shown in the Volume of Estimates for the Supply Services for 1958-59. I ask the Dáil to agree to the Vote on Account.

Mr. Sweetman

Before we come to discuss details arising on the Book of Estimates which has been circulated by the Minister, there are one or two matters to which we might draw attention. In the first place, I regret that the Minister informed the Dáil on 12th February, and has confirmed now, that he did not propose to segregate the taking of the capital and current Budgets. The House is aware that that is a change in the administrative procedure which I proposed to initiate last year and which I was prevented from initating by the general election. However, I think it was a change that, without any regard for political loyalties, was welcomed by people on all sides of the House at that time.

We have had too little time devoted to the consideration of our capital position. It is quite inevitable that if the capital Budget is presented at the time when the current Budget is presented at the end of April or the beginning of May, the proposals of whatever Minister for Finance may be there at the time for current purposes will far outweigh in interest the proposals there may be as to the capital to be spent and the manner in which that capital will be raised. The provisions that are made in any Budget for current purposes touch the immediate future of every individual in a much more intimate way than the capital provisions do and it is natural enough that interest will tend to focus on the current rather than on the capital Budget. It would, therefore, have been wise this year for the Minister, particularly when we were not faced with any other administrative difficulties due to an election, to have adopted the plan to segregate the two.

The Minister must also be criticised severely for the fact that he has not published the Capital Investment Committee's Report which he acknowledged he had received some time ago. I do not know the date on which the Minister received that report but I do know that he admitted in this House on the 12th February last that the report had been received. It would have been highly desirable if the report and the views of that committee, to whatever subject they were directed in that report, had been available for the members of this House when discussing this Vote on Account. That does not necessarily mean that either this side or that side of the House would have accepted the views but, before coming to conclusions on the first of the stages set for the coming financial year on financial policy, it would have been desirable when the views of this committee were available that they should have been put openly before the Dáil and, indeed, before the country as a whole.

The Vote on Account is usually the first indication that the House and the country can get, with the publication of the Book of Estimates, of the intended financial and economic policy of the Government. One of the things that is particularly noticeable is that the secret, to which Deputy Norton on a previous occasion referred as the best kept secret of modern times, the policy of Fianna Fáil, does not emerge even in this Book of Estimates or in the speech that the Minister has just made. In fact his speech was confined solely to a factual recital of certain arithmetical figures which we could all have taken out, and most of us have already taken out, from the Book of Estimates.

Whether people liked the economic policy which we put into effect in 1955 and 1956, is not the point I want to make now. Whether they liked it or not, it was perfectly clear that the policy we embarked upon at that time was one that ran through all the measures we put to the Dáil then. The policy was designed, of course, to ensure that, as a primary objective and as a first essential, we would achieve a balance in our external payments, a balance which in fact was achieved in the financial year ending 31st March, 1957. I mention that now merely to stress that the policy adopted in relation to bank interest in December, 1955, the Book of Estimates published in February, 1956, the Vote on Account that was taken in March, 1956, the Budget, and the levies in July, 1956, was all part of a cohesive and coherent policy. It was possible from any one of those to know exactly the financial and economic policy upon which we were then set. No such possibility arises from consideration of this Book of Estimates. No such possibility arises from any consideration of the speech that has just been made by the Minister for Finance or any other speeches that he has made in recent months. It is unfortunate that that is so because it means that the House and the country as a whole are still left in the dark as to what is the economic and financial policy of the Fianna Fáil Government.

The second main criticism I want to make in relation to this Book of Estimates is that it is the publication of the self-confessed failure of the present Minister. I was not quite able to follow the figures which he mentioned in relation to non-capital services but I will take the figures as they appear in the Abstract of the Book at page xv. The Minister will remember that in his Budget speech at column 947 he admitted that food subsidies were at that time running at something over £9,000,000 a year. In cutting out food subsidies—in defiance, let me add, as the Taoiseach is sitting next to him, of the promise that was made by the Taoiseach at Belmullet during the general election and by the Tánaiste at Waterford— the Minister saved £9,000,000 a year, not for the current year but £9,000,000 for a full year. There were compensatory social welfare benefits given to the extent of £1.95 million in the current year and, though I have not seen the exact figure at which they were estimated for a full year, I think I am not being unfair to the Minister if I say that £1.95 million for a part of the year is the equivalent of £2,500,000 for a full year.

What does that mean? It means that the Minister had by reason of the action taken by him in the last Budget £6,500,000 by which the non-capital portion of this Book of Estimates should have been reduced and that, if it is not reduced by that amount, the Minister for Finance has frittered away all the benefits that would have arisen or could have arisen to the Exchequer and of which he spoke last year at Budget time. It means that, notwithstanding all the real hardship which the decision he took in the Budget involved, the Exchequer benefit that could have been anticipated to come for the coming year has now gone. It is perfectly clear from the Minister's own phraseology, the Minister's own statement, that there was to be £9,000,000 saved in the full year to be offset by, say, £2,500,000 on social welfare, a net reduction of £6,500,000—a course which, I might add, was taken by the Minister notwithstanding the fact that it was liable to jeopardise, and has in fact jeopardised, stability in relation to prices and wages which was clearly so very desirable for the national economy.

We warned the Minister at that time that there was the gravest danger that his action would jeopardise that stability and events that have taken place since, and even questions answered by the Taoiseach to-day in relation to prices, have made it perfectly clear that the warnings we gave at that time have been fully justified and have in fact, unfortunately, demonstrated that what we then suggested would come to pass has come to pass.

Where do we find ourselves? In relation to the £6,500,000 by which the Minister should have been able to reduce current Estimates, on page xv of the Abstract we find there is a net decrease of £1,700,000 as set out in the Minister's own publication and, if we turn back to the Summary of Capital Services in the earlier pages, we see that in relation to Capital Services there is a decrease of £478,000. That decrease of £478,000 is included in the decrease of £1,714,000 on page xv and one may accordingly say that roughly the decrease in current services on the figures published by the Minister is approximately £1,250,000. The figure is actually £1,236,000.

There is more than that. There is something which the Minister tried to gloss over in his speech a few months ago; he has taken three services which were previously met from current account and he has transferred those services from current account to capital account. I know very well the ballyhoo there would have been had I done that. The welkin would have been made to ring with accusations that I was plunging the country into debt; that I, instead of paying for things when payment fell due, was putting them on the "never-never" system. We all know the dishonest propaganda disseminated by Fianna Fáil in relation to other items in that respect. If these three items, which total no less than £1,534,000 on current account, had been transferred by me to capital account I can visualise Deputy de Valera and Deputy Dr. Ryan on these Opposition Benches almost breaking the furniture in their indignation at my action. We would have been treated again to the spectacle of Deputy de Valera stamping out through the door in his annoyance at my temerity in doing such a thing.

The present Minister has done it and, in so doing, he has faked the current as against the capital account to the extent of £1,534,000 as compared with and in relation to the position that obtained 12 months ago. The three items to which I refer are M (11) in Vote 26, £884,000: O (4) in Vote 50, £200,000 and P (1) in Vote 50, £450,000, making a total of £1,534,000. We see, therefore, instead of having the saving on current account that a frugal Minister for Finance would have of £6,500,000, when one takes that transfer of services from current to capital account and takes into account at the same time the £1,250,000 deduction on the face of the general abstract, in fact current services for the coming year are up by £300,000 instead of being down by £6,500,000.

I can imagine what great joy it would give to the members of the present Government if they were on this side of the House now and in the position of being able to criticise me in that respect. The fact is the Book of Estimates shows the failure of the Minister for Finance to grapple with the problem.

Let us turn now to some of the reductions that have been made in relation to capital services. Where are they? There is a reduction in Vote 9 for new works, etc., under sub-head B of £130,746. What do we find when we look at the details? From where does that reduction come? That reduction is a reduction offset by certain small increases in other respects, but it is a reduction that comes primarily from a decrease in the amount that the Minister is proposing to make available next year for new schools of £174,000.

We have heard from time to time in this House and during the general election campaign what great things the Fianna Fáil Party would do in relation to new school building works, what great things they would do in relation to speeding up the building programme, what great things they would do to ensure that people would be put back in work on building programmes without delay. What do we find in this Book of Estimates? All that has happened in that respect is a reduction of £174,000 on the amount that will be made available through the Department of Education for school building in the next financial year. The Minister has already referred to the reduction of £700,000 in private housing grants. The Minister and the Taoiseach again and again in this House hurled allegations at us when we were in Government because we were not providing sufficient money for housing. But the first Book of Estimates that the Taoiseach and his Minister for Finance present to the country shows a reduction of £700,000 for direct housing grants in the Department of Local Government Estimate and, let me emphasise it, a reduction of £27,000 in the Estimate for Gaeltacht housing—sub-head F (1).

How will these reductions help the building trade? How will these reductions ensure that the various promises made by the present Ministers during the general election campaign will be carried out? Remember Deputy Lemass speaking at Castlecomer on 24th February, 1957:—

"The new Government must at once stimulate employment by the institution of a capital investment programme designed to put men to work, to put wages into their pockets so that these wages will be spent in the shops and so that the whole national economy would get a boost."

What do we find? In relation to building, we find £174,000 less for building schools and £700,000 less for ordinary housing grants. Even in relation to the West, we find a reduction of £27,000 for Gaeltacht housing.

As I am dealing with specific promises made by Deputy Lemass speaking in Castlecomer during the last general election, I might perhaps take advantage of this opportunity to refer to a speech made by the present Minister for Lands here in this House on the Adjournment Debate before last Christmas. In that debate the Government had been challenged that there was no sign whatsoever of the £100,000,000 plan that had been advocated by Deputy Lemass on an earlier occasion when he was in opposition. The Government was challenged before Christmas with the absence of any move in that respect. We said then, and I repeat now, that the proposal put forward at that time was put forward as a specific policy of Fianna Fáil designed for the purpose of catching votes.

When that case was made in the House just before Christmas, the Minister for Lands said that the proposals were ideas for consideration and did not constitute an official political policy. Since then I had the opportunity of checking some of the speeches made by Deputy Lemass, as he then was, in relation to those plans. It shows perfectly clearly, beyond any question of doubt, that they were not the proposals indicated by the Minister for Lands but were a policy then adopted by the Fianna Fáil Party deliberately for the purpose of ensuring that by so doing they would represent the policy we were putting into operation as a wrong policy and that, if only they were given the chance, they would do all these things.

Deputy Lemass, speaking at Graiguecullen, Carlow, on the 11th of November, 1956, said:—

"He had published, on behalf of Fianna Fáil, proposals for a full employment policy designed to secure that in five years capital investment would be extended until jobs were available for every boy and girl leaving school as well as absorbing those unemployed at present. These proposals still stood."

—on the 12th November, 1956, mark you—

"and represent Fianna Fáil's idea of how national affairs should be conducted."

I notice we have not got Deputy Medlar in the House at the moment. It was partly as a result of that speech that Deputy Medlar was returned to this House as a Deputy for Carlow-Kilkenny. Perhaps he will get up in the course of this debate and explain through this House to the people who voted for him in 1956 how it was that the policy, on foot of which votes were asked for him, has been thrown overboard. Let me say quite frankly: thank God it has been, because it was the most lunatic proposal ever made by any public man who should have been responsible.

Deputy Lemass went on in Graiguecullen to add another thing which was not true. As it was in the same speech, it might be as well to correct it:—

"In addition they (Fianna Fáil) had set up the National Development Fund which they had financed out of current revenue."

Deputy Lemass should have known the facts, or if he had not known, he should not have been so reckless as to say something so obviously untrue. That was not the only place in which Deputy Lemass suggested that the proposals were in fact the official Fianna Fáil policy. He went down to Edenderry and, speaking on behalf of Mr. Kieran Egan, as he then was, Deputy Egan now—again I notice Deputy Egan is not here either—Deputy Lemass said, as reported in the Irish Press, otherwise Pravda of the 23rd April, 1956:—

"Fianna Fáil had published proposals for a full employment policy. They were the only proposals which had been made and nobody had attempted to show any serious defect in them."

Let us be quite clear that they were the official policy of Fianna Fáil, designed for the purpose of catching votes and now happily thrown overboard but let us not adopt the dishonest substerfuge the Minister for Lands adopted just before Christmas in trying to pretend that they were not the policy at all.

Let us go back again to the capital services summarised in the front of this Book of Estimates. We find not merely is there the reduction of £700,000 in housing grants to which I have referred, but, in addition, that there is the complete elimination of grants under the Local Authorities (Works) Act, except for a figure of £50,000 obviously for the purpose of tidying up outstanding liabilities.

The antipathy of Fianna Fáil to that work has been long known. This scheme was not designed by them. It was put through this House by the late Deputy Tim Murphy, Lord have mercy on him, when Minister for Local Government, and it was put through in the teeth of the fiercest opposition from the Fianna Fáil Party. Up and down the country wherever one goes, one can see benefits that have accrued to local areas as a result of the work done under that Act.

I shall not suggest for a minute that some mistakes were not made in relation to drainage work done under that Act. There was not a single measure passed through this House in respect of which there was not some mistake made in the administration of it. But I do say, and say it without challenge and fear of contradiction, that there was more good work done under that Act for the purpose of making land adequately productive than has been done under very many other schemes throughout the country. Quite apart from anything else, were it not for the fact that the grants were available under that Act, there would be innumerable cases in which land project work could not be done at all because there would not be the outfall to get the water away from the fields and so ensure that the land project work could be done.

I am not advocating the retention or the putting back of those grants for the employment content they gave alone, but because I believe that what was needed in respect of that work was proper supervision. Further supervision may have been necessary, but it is quite clear to me, and I think will be clear to every unprejudiced member of the House, that there was, and is, a clear need for some type of drainage work between the large scale arterial drainage, on the one hand, and the field drainage carried out through the land project, on the other.

As far as these Estimates are concerned, and as far as the Vote which the Minister for Finance has asked the Dáil to pass is concerned, nothing will be included for those works. That decision is a pity and one which will not assist production in the future. Perhaps this is a detailed matter we might discuss more on the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture itself, but I would like to know clearly what will happen in cases—and I have many in my own constituency—where the land project people cannot do the work until the outfalls are cleared as they were cleared in respect of other minor rivers in earlier years under the Local Authorities (Works) Act?

The Minister said that the reason for the reduction of £163,000 for farm buildings was over-estimation in the current year. I hope the Minister does not think that we are altogether so naïve. Is it not quite clear that the reason for that reduction is because the Minister for Agriculture has cancelled the double-byre grant for those who, outside the intensive areas, are prepared to go in for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis? We all know that the Minister has made that change and we all must accept the fact that when the double grants have been cancelled the amount to be paid out of the Exchequer will be less than if they had been retained. It is altogether too naïve to expect us to believe that the reason that farm building grants are down is because of over-estimation.

The Minister for Agriculture when he was making that announcement stressed the fact that he had substantial lists of applications for such grants on his books at the moment. If the Estimate for the current year is not being fully taken up, would it not be a good plan if the Department of Agriculture woke up and hurried up on the many applications for grants for farm buildings that are on its files and that have not been dealt with because of the policy of delay? If there is more money than is necessary how is it that Deputies are getting regularly, in their daily post, communications from constituents asking them to request expendition in the payments of grants by the Department of Agriculture under this scheme? How is it that if there is a real desire to deal with this problem adequate steps are not now being taken to deal with this during the coming year?

The double-byre grant is given to those people outside the intensive area who are prepared to take part in the accredited herd scheme for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis. It is the only inducement to those outside the intensive areas to undertake that work and to proceed with it and that inducement is now being stopped by the present Government. In so far as there is anything additional in the Book of Estimates for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis it is most heartily welcomed by this side of the House but it is a bad example of blowing both hot and cold that the only inducement outside the intensive areas has been deliberately ourtailed by the Minister for Agriculture and the present Government.

If I may digress for a moment from capital to current saving in the Department of Agriculture, I notice that the Minister for Finance proposes to provide £18,000 more this year for the salaries of civil servants in the Department of Agriculture and to provide £5,000 more for the travelling expenses of those civil servants. Curious as that is, more curious still is the manner in which the provision for ground limestone has been manipulated so that there will be £282,000 less available for ground limestone next year than during the current year. The Taoiseach may well raise his eyebrows because I am going to remind him of a speech he made just on the eve of the general election. Speaking on the 24th February, about a week before the general election, in his own constituency of Ennis, he is reported as saying:—

"We must get the farmers to bring the soil to proper condition by the use of ground limestone."

One of the ways in which it is now proposed to do that is the imposition of a transport charge of 4/2 and a proposal to provide £282,000 less than the amount provided for ground limestone in the current year. That was not just a case of the Taoiseach speaking in Ennis, off the cuff, and without having thought about this matter. The Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis was held in November, 1956, and in the Irish Independent of the 21st November, this appears:—

"Stressing the need for increased agricultural production, Mr. de Valera said that if Fianna Fáil were returned to office they would do everything they could to extend the application of limestone to the land."

"Everything they could" apparently means a reduction in the amount to be made available this year to induce the farmers to take it and also the imposition of a charge for transport. In case there might be any thought that the Taoiseach might feel that the Irish Independent had misquoted him in that respect I should like to take the opportunity of reading a sentence or two from his own newspaper of the same date:—

"If we are the Government again, there is one thing I will promise and that is that everything we can do to push this ground limestone for the land we will do it."

Perhaps the Taoiseach, when he comes to speak, will explain to this House and to the country exactly what is the meaning of the word "promise" in that context.

We had some discussion on another occasion and we shall have some discussion also to-day on a part of Vote 26 —that part of Vote 26 which deals with the production of those products which are so urgently needed at the present time and which the farmers have been producing in such good measure during the current year and without any thanks to the present Government. Before I deal with that matter may I say that I have seen in the newspapers a report that the Taoiseach is receiving a deputation to-morrow from the National Farmers' Association? I do not know whether it is true or not, but if true, I suggest that the Taoiseach before he does so, would take advantage of the opportunity of looking again at a speech made by his colleague, the Minister for Finance, Dr. Ryan, which he broadcast on February 26 last, when he suggested that "a Fianna Fáil Minister would keep in constant touch with farming organisations." That was one of the things held out by the Minister when he was seeking the suffrages of the electorate almost on the eve of the poll. If the Taoiseach has any doubt about that being in the Minister's broadcast he can ask the Minister now——

Dr. Ryan

Surely there is nothing wrong in that?

Mr. Sweetman

I am glad the Minister admits he said that. Perhaps the Taoiseach will take advantage of knowing that he said that when meeting the National Farmers' Association to-morrow and apologise to them for the ill-tempered, ill-advised and discourteous speech made by the Minister for Finance in County Wexford recently about the farmers.

Dr. Ryan

He can have the advantage of that.

Mr. Sweetman

I hope he will.

Dr. Ryan

Anything at all to get a bit of support from that side.

Mr. Sweetman

No. I did not always agree with the National Farmers' Association, but when I did not agree with them I did not decline to meet them to discuss matters with them and argue the toss across the table. I do not believe in going out against a responsible body whether I agree with them or not and battering them from public platforms because that is not the way to get the increase in national production which we need.

Dr. Ryan

Thanks for the lecture anyway.

Mr. Sweetman

I said earlier I could not find in the course of an examination of this Book of Estimates any indication of the policy of the Government. I want to repeat that, unless there is the indication given by the Minister for Agriculture across the House the other day when he said, in relation to question dealing with the price of milk, with a recrudescence, I thought, of an old mood of his: "The farmers have their cows and they have got to milk them anyway."

If one takes the actions of the present Government in recent times and compares those actions with some of the things that Government members have said when seeking votes, it is easy to see why people, regardless of political creed, have no faith whatsoever in the approach of this Government to any of the national problems. Where are we going to-day in relation to agricultural production? The price of wheat, as we all know, has been cut. It is not necessary for us to go back over the discussions we had the other day, but there are a few questions I should like the Taoiseach to answer when he speaks later in this debate. For example, I should like him to say why Senator Cogan, then a prominent member of the Fianna Fáil Party— and, shall I say, a prominent speaker on behalf of Deputy Dr. Humphreys who is listening to me now, a speaker who aided very much in returning Deputy Dr. Humphreys to this House in the last general election—got up at Rathoe on February 24 and said: "The first task of the new Fianna Fáil Government will be to restore the price of wheat to what it was when the late Deputy Walsh left office."

Perhaps Deputy Dr. Humphreys will explain to the House in this debate how it is that he allowed his main speaker in Carlow to make that promise for him if he was not prepared to fulfil it. Perhaps the Taoiseach will explain how it was that Senator Cogan, then a member of the Fianna Fáil Party in the Oireachtas, made that spech if he had not heard the same promise made behind closed doors——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The remarks of Senator Cogan on that subject would not be relevant to this debate.

Mr. Sweetman

It is quite evident that Senator Cogan was not speaking for himself on that occasion but for the Fianna Fáil Party as a whole.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I take it the Minister does not accept any responsibility for speeches made outside the House.

Mr. Sweetman

The Minister must accept responsibility for what he has in the Book of Estimates and one of the things he has in that book is a change in that regard. But if the Minister would rather that I should quote for him his own broadcast in which he said that the wheat price cut was "cruel and unjust"—that was on the 25th February—I am quite prepared to do so.

Dr. Ryan

I do not mind.

Mr. Sweetman

I should also like to remind some of the Deputies over there of a speech made by Deputy Lemass at Abbeyfeale on October 31st, 1955. It shows the hollowness of the criticisms that were made by Fianna Fáil at that time. When they were in opposition they were prepared to say anything that they thought would suit regardless of any responsibility they should have had as an Opposition.

Speaking at Abbeyfeale, Deputy Lemass said:—

"It is a striking commentary on the Coalition's management of affairs that the price of bread should be going up as the price paid to the Irish farmer for wheat is cut——"

In fact, the only difference about the thing was that at that time the price of bread did not go up——

Dr. Ryan

The loaf went down instead.

Mr. Sweetman

The price of bread and the size of the loaf remained exactly the same in 1955 when Deputy Lemass was speaking. We now have an entirely different situation. We all know that the price of bread has been going up while the price of wheat is coming down. But in relation to all these general questions of prices it is difficult to reconcile many speeches that were made, but it is most difficult, perhaps, in the case of the Minister for Lands, who said on November 21st, 1956:—

"that one of the biggest problems was to convince farmers that if they produced more, prices would not come down disastrously. If Fianna Fáil came into office they might offer a large price for wheat and further inducement to barley growers in an effort to stimulate production."

But the Minister and his colleagues were not content merely with the announcement in relation to wheat which they made recently, but they have brought down the price of barley by 3/- per barrel with an additional penalty clause for moisture content in excess of 20 per cent.

If that was not enough on the agricultural front we have a matter to which the Minister for Finance made some reference before. We have an official reduction by the present Government of the floor price for Grade A pigs of 5/- a cwt. on the prices that were in operation before the present Government took office. Quite apart from that reduction in relation to Grade A pigs, anybody in the country knows that it is virtually impossible to get anything near the Grade A price for Grade B pigs. Although there is a 5/- reduction per cwt. in relation to Grade A pigs, 50/- would probably be nearer the reduction in relation to Grade B—somewhere about that. It is difficult enough to get them bought at any price if they do not qualify as Grade A.

That is a peculiar contrast when set opposite two speeches made by the present Minister for Finance during the Carlow-Kilkenny by-election, speeches designed to get support for Deputy Medlar, as he is now.

Dr. Ryan

He did well too.

Mr. Sweetman

He did very well and anybody would do well if he were prepared to go out and use the false propaganda that the Minister for Finance was prepared to use: "The reason pig production had dropped was that the farmers thought they were not getting enough for them."

Dr. Ryan

I should like the Deputy to know that I did say in that speech that one of the good things Deputy Dillon did was to bring in a pig scheme. I always give credit where it is due.

Mr. Sweetman

I am glad the Minister has interrupted me to that extent because I want to add the rest of the quotation:—

"The easiest course to remedy this would be to reduce the farmers' costs. Since the Coalition had come into office they had driven the price of bran and pollard out of reach of the farmer."

Dr. Ryan

That is ture.

Mr. Sweetman

What has the Minister done in relation to bran and pollard? Perhaps he would like to go back again to Hacketstown and explain that to the people in Hacketstown or perhaps he would like to go back to Glenmore, Kilkenny, where he spoke on the following Sunday, and explain that he did not really mean all those things he was saying——

Dr. Ryan

I did mean them.

Mr. Sweetman

——that when he got into office and got the chance he would throw everything overboard in the way that he has suggested.

I was going to refer to another matter about which the Minister was pretty vocal in other parts of the country but I shall spare his anxiety.

Dr. Ryan

I do not mind.

Mr. Sweetman

I shall spare him and his colleagues because they organised a campaign and they are now being hoist with their own petard. Everyone knows that the campaign in relation to the Milk Costings Commission, while Deputy Dillon was Minister for Agriculture, was a campaign organised from Fianna Fáil. Everybody knows now that Fianna Fáil are getting the results of their own campaign and no one can have any sympathy for them for what they are receiving. What we do realise is the danger there may be to our basic production, the danger that there may be to the whole live-stock industry, the danger that there may be to the necessary eradication of bovine tuberculosis by 1960 or 1961 as a result of a foolish and intemperate method which the Minister has adopted. These are matters that will affect the national economy.

Members on this side of the House will read without any reminder from me but I would advise every member of Fianna Fáil to read the statistical information that was given by the Taoiseach on 20th February, 1958, in replies to questions, columns 597 onwards. It will be seen that £45,000,000 of our exports in 1957 were due to live cattle; £2,700,000 due to frozen beef and veal; £3,243,000 due to exports of fresh or chilled beef and veal, all of which have their foundation in the dairy industry. The risk that, because of intemperate action, that vast export might be affected is a risk that no Government should have taken if it had any real regard for the position.

The Fianna Fáil Party are sometimes wont to speak as if they were the sole custodians of increased production in certain aspects of agriculture. It is an astonishing thing that 1957, when everyone must admit and when the Minister for External Affairs said in this House that the Fianna Fáil Party came into Government too late to influence the course of events in relation to the 1957 agricultural season, was the most successful season we have ever had. Live-stock exports were greater than ever; there was a greater crop of wheat; feeding barley was higher; there were more pigs going to the factories; more exports of butter, more exports of bacon. All these things happened in 1957 after the Minister for External Affairs said in reply to a question in this House last April that the Government had got in too late to influence in any way agricultural production for 1957. They had got in too late, thank God, to influence agricultural production as they are influencing it now for the coming season.

In relation to economic policy, I thought, for example, that we might have heard to-day from the Minister for Finance something that would have indicated, at this stage of the economic and financial business of the current year, that when Deputies of Fianna Fáil were speaking this time last year about the then position they were right. No, we have not heard anything from the Minister to suggest that he was going to abolish the levies that were imposed by me. We have not heard anything from the Minister to suggest that Deputy Traynor, the present Minister for Justice, was right when, on Monday, 24th February, 1957, at the North Strand, he said, referring to the inter-Party Government:—

"The remedy they applied was the levying of 37 per cent. in respect of goods coming from the British Commonwealth and 60 per cent. on goods coming from outside. In other words, they increased the housewife's cost of living by 7/6 and 12/6 in the £. If the electorate gave Fianna Fáil a chance, they would tackle the task in the same manner in which they tackled it in 1951."

I should like the Minister for Finance to explain how it is that he has not taken the levy off any of the articles which the housewife purchases and to which Deputy Traynor referred 12 months ago.

One can refer to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Mr. Lemass, speaking at Graiguecullen when he said:—

"The Government seem to have set out on a deliberate policy of reducing consumption by curtailing employment and putting up the price of goods. Under that policy it was natural that the wage earner should suffer because the well-to-do could afford the higher prices. Such a policy was not necessary."

In relation to that I would like to hear from the Minister for Finance of any single item subject to levy which the housewife has to buy and in respect of which he has changed in any respect the levy that was in operation when he took over office. I know in certain respects he changed one levy and transferred it from a temporary charge going to capital account into a permanent charge going to revenue and by so doing earned £530,000 for ten months of this year as he admitted in answer to a question the other day. It was in relation to the housewives that Deputy Traynor was speaking. Is there any single item which the Minister has made easier of purchase for the housewife as Deputy Traynor deliberately tried to give the impression he would do if he became a Minister in the Government?

As we are on that subject of the cost of living, may I recall to the Taoiseach's mind the exact words of his reply on the 26th February: "There is no evidence that the cost of living is at the moment increasing"? That was his exact reply.

The Taoiseach

That is right. "At the moment."

Mr. Sweetman

I do not know whether the Taoiseach—I do not think he does as I do sometimes—goes into certain establishments, but if he went out and said anywhere, in any licensed premises up or down the country where you get a body of men gathered together or in any milk bar where you get a body of ladies gathered together, or in a café: "Ladies" or "gentlemen" as the case may be, "do you think there is any evidence that at the present moment the cost of living is increasing?" I know very well the answer the Taoiseach would get. In fact, something amused me recently after that was published in the paper. I was down in a part of my constituency that Deputy Dooley knows very well and I was asked was it really true that the Taoiseach had said such a thing.

Dr. Ryan

The Deputy had a nice impartial audience anyway.

Mr. Sweetman

I will tell you why I had such a nice impartial audience, because the man who said it to me votes Fianna Fáil always and I can give his name any time to Deputy Dooley. That was not the only case that arose, but there are many people who really believe that if the Taoiseach said that, the evidence they have day in and day out going to the shops must be all wrong.

The Taoiseach

I was asked a statistical question.

Mr. Sweetman

All I can say is that if the Taoiseach wants to persuade the country that there is no evidence at the present moment that the cost of living is increasing, he will have a job that will be impossible even for him, and he is pretty good at making people believe what is not accurate.

Dr. Ryan

Why does the Deputy try to destroy confidence in the Statistics Department?

Mr. Sweetman

I have plenty of confidence in the Statistics Department.

Dr. Ryan

Why is the Deputy trying to kill it now?

The Taoiseach

It is to be believed if prices are going up.

Dr. Ryan

If it suits them, but otherwise they do not believe it.

Mr. Sweetman

The Minister for Finance can go out if he likes and join the Taoiseach——

Dr. Ryan

And quote the Statistics Department.

Mr. Sweetman

——in persuading the people at the present moment that the cost of living is not increasing——

Dr. Ryan

I will quote the Statistics Department.

Mr. Sweetman

——and if the Minister wants to go out and persuade the people in that way, more power to him.

Dr. Ryan

The Deputy does not mind destroying confidence in the Statistics Department in order to make a small point. It is a mean sort of business.

Mr. Sweetman

One of the first things that above all else a Minister for Finance should have is the ability to keep his temper.

The Taoiseach

The next thing is the ability to stand in the same position as he was when he was responsible.

Mr. Sweetman

As I say, I will be only too glad to hear the Taoiseach expand on that point when he comes to speak.

Dr. Ryan

And if he quotes statistics they should be accepted.

Mr. Sweetman

I always accept statistics but I always want to be quite sure that the whole statistics are quoted, and not only a selected version of them. I hope the statistics that will be quoted in this respect by the Minister for Finance and by the Taoiseach will be more honest than the statistics they were prepared to quote this time last year in the general election for the purpose——

Dr. Ryan

The Deputy is trying to get away now. He should stick to the present subject.

Mr. Sweetman

——of deliberately deluding the people and for the purpose of deliberately trying to get votes on promises that they must have known were not justified.

Dr. Ryan

I admire the Deputy's retreat.

Mr. Sweetman

The Deputy is not in the least in retreat. It is the Minister who is in retreat and who is going to have to be in retreat pretty often if he goes on making speeches like the one he made in Wexford the other day. Deliberately last year the members of that Front Bench over there went through the country by innuendo suggesting that if only they were returned to office there would be a big change in the situation.

Dr. Ryan

So there was. The country was saved.

Mr. Sweetman

Remember the advertisement: "For a Government that means business give Fianna Fáil a majority." Does that mean business in relation to wheat, business in relation to barley, in relation to milk, in relation to the double-byre cowshed grants, in relation to pigs, in relation to the local authorities' works drainage, in relation to greater taxation, in relation to higher food prices? Was that the kind of business the Taoiseach tried to pretend to the people a year ago he was going to introduce if only he took over the reins of office? It is not only the selected audience favourable to us that tells of these things. Here is a selected audience, deliberately selected by Fianna Fáil, the Fianna Fáil constituency convention in Nenagh. The Minister for Defence was down there so that he can tell us exactly what occurred and he can tell us where and how the Nenagh Guardian is incorrect in its statements.

Incidentally, may I congratulate the Minister for Defence on the epoch-making discovery he made as evidenced by the heading to his speech in Nenagh: "Unemployment Was Still Too High." An epoch-making discovery ! I am quoting from the Nenagh Guardian of Saturday, 1st March, 1958:—

"Kilbarron cumann moved a motion expressing dissatisfaction with the wheat price arrangement for 1958 owing to the injurious effects on the small farmer.... A Kilbarron delegate said they had been told at the last General Election to produce more wheat and they put in a Government that docked the price by 10/- or 11/- a barrel. The more they produced the less they were paid. The same argument applied to pigs and poultry. Why were the Government hitting the farmers so heavy at the present time?

Mr. Brennan said that the general public was dissatisfied with the price of wheat, and the present arrangement hits, in the first instance, the unfortunate poor, small tillage wheat-grower whose livelihood was going to be reduced by the big ranchers."

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This would be more relevant to the main Estimate for the Department of Agriculture than to the Vote on Account.

Mr. Sweetman

There are some things in this which refer to the general policy of the Government and I would like the Government not to miss any opportunity of learning them. Mr. Fanning—Deputy Fanning as far as I am aware—said that:—

"The resolution should be accepted by the Minister."

A good man down in Nenagh but when he comes up here the Deputy is, of course, in a different category.

Dr. Ryan

We do not close the doors at our meetings like Fine Gael does.

Mr. Sweetman

I have a sort of suspicion that there will not be many meetings like this in the future because the Minister will not be anxious to go down to them. Any time the Minister is anxious to come down and listen to a meeting of mine, or a convention in Newbridge, he will be very welcome.

Dr. Ryan

I should have to know the password.

Mr. Sweetman

We will allow him to listen and he will hear a few things which will educate him.

Dr. Ryan

And no Press.

Mr. Sweetman

Indeed, there is a Press. May I continue to quote:—

"Mr. Ryan, M.C.C., said:—

‘They could not stand up to the Opposition because it was actually promised from the platforms at the election that the price of wheat would remain as it was, and it was coming bad from a Fianna Fáil Government to reduce the price of wheat, barley and oats. He did not know how they could face the country and something would have to be done to counteract it.'"

Dr. Ryan

I did not select the people who were saying that.

Mr. Sweetman

These are Fianna Fáil delegates.

Dr. Ryan

We did not try to muzzle them.

Mr. Sweetman

These are Fianna Fáil delegates getting up and saying that these things were promised by Fianna Fáil.

Dr. Ryan

Freedom of speech.

Mr. Sweetman

They even referred there to a speech made by the Tánaiste. I am quoting Mr. Williams:—

"Last year they had Mr. Lemass in Nenagh and he told them the object of the Government was to relieve unemployment and he said: ‘Let's get cracking.' They had waited for the Government to get cracking and the results had been very poor."

Minister for Defence (Mr. K. Boland)

Unemployment is 10 per cent. less than it was when the Deputy was in office.

Mr. Sweetman

I am coming to unemployment. The Minister need not be in any anxiety in that respect. I invite the Minister for Defence to go back over the statistical records about which the Minister for Finance is so anxious to see what the records are in relation to unemployment. Is it not clear from those records that the peak in relation to unemployment had already been passed two months before he took office and that the reduction in the two months before he took office showed that unemployment was down by some 8,000 from the peak?

Mr. Haughey

No.

Mr. Sweetman

Those are the facts. The peak in January was 94,000 and when the Deputy came in here as a member of this House it was 8,000 down from the peak.

Mr. Boland

That was the normal seasonal decrease.

Mr. Sweetman

It was not the normal seasonal decrease. The seasonal decrease takes place after the Employment Order comes into effect. We all know that. I am talking of the period before the Employment Order came into effect last year. The fact is that, no matter how the figures are twisted, it cannot be gainsaid that the position in relation to unemployment had improved.

Mr. Boland

Unemployment went up by 30 per cent. in the Deputy's last year in office.

Mr. O'Sullivan

The Taoiseach told the Minister to keep quiet.

Mr. Sweetman

The peak had turned, just as we knew the corner had been turned in relation to our external balances before we went out of office in March last. So much for the position as it was misrepresented last year by those who are now Ministers.

We are now facing a situation in which this Government has been in office for nine months and during that period they have shown to the country no evidence of a constructive policy to deal with the problems facing the country. We have during that period, thanks to Providence, had a situation in relation to our external trade in which the terms of trade have moved considerably in our favour. When speaking on the Budget here last year I said that if the terms of trade moved against the Minister I would not hold him in any way blameworthy for that. No Minister can in any degree affect the terms of trade. They are a matter entirely outside the scope of any power we may have here. The index price of imports has dropped steadily from the peak of 117.2 in February, 1957, to 113 now. That is a drop of some 4 per cent. in the prices of the commodities we import. At the same time the index price in relation to exports has risen by about 1 per cent. That improvement has increased the national possibilities and it has done so without any action by the present Government. The tragedy of it is that if the Government were able to grapple with the problems that are there we would be able, as a people, to take advantage of that improvement. I do not believe the Government have taken any advantage of it.

We were told by the Minister that he would economise in the Civil Service. The only economies I can find in relation to Civil Service personnel are two—one in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, arising from a scheme introduced by Mr. Keyes, and the other in Gaeltacht Services where there is a reduction of 179. Why? Because these staffs have been transferred from the Civil Service proper to the offices of the new company. Scarcely a genuine reduction!

In relation to the Exchequer position, up to Christmas both the Minister and the Taoiseach were trying to curdle our blood. The fact is that, far from there being the deterioration about which we were told, there has been an improvement. This year total revenue is £112.94 millions as against £108.07. If one takes out the Special Import Levy of £2.27 this year and £3.81 last year, and the Road Fund revenue of £5.47 this year and £4.67 last year, one finds that the Government have increased revenue from taxation this year by £5,610,000. Take the other side of the picture, current expenditure. This year the total current expenditure from the Central Fund is £25,000,000; last year it was £24,490,000. Deducting from that the amount that came in for the Capital Account under the levy and the Road Fund, £7,774,000 this year and £8,480,000 last year, we can find that the Central Fund expenditure on current account this year is £1,250,000 up on last year at a total of £17.26 millions against £16.01 millions.

Supply Services: I have not got the information to differentiate between capital supply and current supply; only the Minister for Finance knows that. But taking the same period for last year, we find this year that the totals are £88.99 millions as against £92.97 millions. Assuming that the Capital Services are the same, the total current expenditure this year shows a reduction of £2.73 millions.

If you add that to the increase in revenue, the total is an improvement in the first 11 months of this year of £8,430,000. Deduct if you like the whole of the deficit of £6,000,000 last year. It means that in the first 11 months of the year the Minister has, by comparison with last year and over and above the deficit, a surplus of £2,430,000. That is the position up to the 1st of March as is published in Iris Oifigiúil. I do not know what the Minister will do between the 1st and 31st March. Only the Minister can tell that. Those details are not published at this stage. But the position on the 1st March is that the Minister, in relation to current revenue and expenditure, is £8,430,000 better than the Exchequer was on the same date last year. What the Minister will do in the last month, time will tell. But with one month to go that is where he stands.

The Taoiseach

What about last year's deficit?

Mr. Sweetman

That is the position on the published figures.

The Taoiseach

I am talking about the deficit.

Mr. Sweetman

I am allowing for the deficit. I am taking the deficit off. Taking that into account, he is still £2,430,000 better off up to the 1st March.

Dr. Ryan

I wish the Deputy were right.

Mr. Sweetman

I am right up to the first of March.

Dr. Ryan

I am afraid not.

Mr. Sweetman

I am right without any question. What the Minister will do to that in the month that runs is another question. Let the Minister remember that these are not statistics published even by the Statistics Office; they are statistics published by his own Department every week in Iris Oifigiúil——

Dr. Ryan

And misinterpreted.

Mr. Sweetman

——and not a selection of them either. In view of the general improvement in relation to the terms of trade, all the country needs now to set it on the right road is a Government that knows its job, that will set out clearly what will be its policy, so that everyone will have the certainty of getting the lead they require, having put clearly before them the objectives and knowing that there is a Government there that will fulfil those objectives. I have not seen any evidence of that in the 11 months that this Government have been in office. They have got a majority here that enables them to keep in office. But the people want more than that. They want them to fulfil their existence as a Government. It is not only those who feel like me politically who feel like that, but those people up and down the country who were misled last year by false promises to vote for Fianna Fáil.

Minister for Defence (Mr. K. Boland)

It would be reasonable to expect a more objective approach from the Opposition than we have heard from Deputy Sweetman. As he has pointed out, it is 12 months since the last general election, and it is four years until the next one. We could reasonably expect then that this debate would be conducted in a more realistic atmosphere and that we would not have this continuous attempt on every occasion to utilise these debates for the purpose of trying to establish that the last election campaign was fought by Fianna Fáil on the basis of reckless promises——

Mr. Sweetman

We all know it was.

Mr. K. Boland

——similar to those which put the Coalition Government into power in 1954. We still have the same tactics from the Opposition of trying to make political propaganda out of everything instead of making an honest effort to contribute something towards the solution of the difficulties they left for this Government to solve. So far as we are to judge by Deputy Sweetman, it appears that this debate will take the same familiar lines.

Deputy Sweetman has attempted to establish that this Government made specific promises in relation to different matters. I would think that the last election campaign would have taught them a lesson in that regard. The fact of the matter is that they were removed from office primarily because of the fact that they had adopted these tactics before. The public memory is not quite as short as they apparently believe it is. Irrespective of what they say here, our main effort in the last election campaign was to try and get rid, once and for all, of the idea which had been implanted in the public mind that it was possible to achieve prosperity, a higher standard of living, higher social services and full employment, merely by voting in a particular way at election time. That was the whole trend of our election campaign.

Mr. Sweetman

Deputy Fanning is arriving late.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order!

Mr. Fanning

Is something troubling the Deputy?

Mr. K. Boland

The whole trend of our election campaign was that these things could not be achieved by voting in a particular way at election times. It is true that the evils, particularly of unemployment and emigration, had become so acute during the last days of the Coalition's period in office that they were the main topics of discussion during the election campaign. But in so far as we were concerned, they were referred to merely for the purpose of convincing the public of the disastrous results of believing in those reckless promises that all these desirable things could be obtained merely by voting for a particular political Party.

We pointed out to the people that it was only by hard work and by increased production higher standards of living and higher employment could be achieved. We did not say, as Deputy Sweetman has tried to make out, that these things would be achieved by voting for Fianna Fáil. The whole basis of our campaign was that only disaster could come from the belief that everything could be achieved overnight by voting for a particular Party. We hoped that the success which attended our efforts in the election campaign would have brought a new note into debates in this House and in election campaigns.

Judging by what we have heard to-day there is still an attempt to convey that same impression that the huge figure of unemployment could have been done away with overnight if Fianna Fáil had decided to do so. I think it is very desirable that that idea should be dissipated once and for all. That was the basis of our election campaign—to get away from that idea and to have elections conducted in future on the basis of what had been done by Governments and the policies they had for the future.

The first part of Deputy Sweetman's speech to-day consisted, as far as I could see, of demands for increased expenditure. All the items I heard criticised by him were items where savings had been made. Apparently he sees some special virtue in an ever-increasing figure in the national Estimates. There were demands for increased expenditure under practically every head, but there was no indication given as to how the money to provide that increased expenditure was to be raised. We are in the position, as the Government, of having to examine the expenditure that is desirable and the means by which it is possible to raise the money.

With regard to the question which he raised of full employment, Deputy Sweetman tried to convey that Fianna Fáil had based their campaign in the election on the promise that they would do away almost overnight with the unemployment that had arisen during the period of office of the Coalition. The fact of the matter is that in the document which he had in his hand when speaking it was clearly indicated, both in the document itself and in subsequent speeches by members of the Government, that these were proposals which were put forward for discussion by the Fianna Fáil Party.

Mr. Sweetman

Was the Minister not listening to what Deputy Lemass said?

Mr. K. Boland

I was listening to what Deputy Sweetman said a few minutes ago. The quotations which he made use of were referred to as proposals for discussion. It was clearly pointed out that they were the basis for discussion in the Fianna Fáil Party.

Mr. Sweetman

Deputy Lemass made it quite clear that they were not.

Mr. K. Boland

We all know the efficiency of Fine Gael Deputies in misrepresenting statements like that; we all know their efficiency in taking statements out of their context and in trying to make them to appear to convey a meaning which they were never intended to convey. Another example of that is the deliberate attempt that has been made to-day to put into the Taoiseach's mouth a statement which he did not make. The Taoiseach stated, on the basis of evidence from the Statistics Office, that the cost of living is not rising at the moment. He did not say that there has been no rise in the cost of living since this Government took over. We all know that there has been and if that question had been asked the proper answer would have been given.

The question was put down and framed in such a way as to give Fine Gael Deputies an opportunity for misrepresentation. The question was put down to get the answer which it was known was the only answer that could be given and then it was tried to misrepresent it. That is typical of the whole speech by Deputy Sweetman to-day. We have statements and alleged statements taken out of their context and an attempt being made to read something into them which was not in them at all.

With regard to the grants under the Local Authorities (Works) Act mentioned by Deputy Sweetman, it is a fact that there was a great deal of wasteful expenditure under that scheme. I do not claim that it was all waste but a great deal of it was. The financial position of the country at the moment is such that we cannot afford to waste money in that way any longer. Any capital moneys that have to be spent in the future will have to be used for productive purposes. We will have to get some production from money expended in that way in order that such money will make some contribution towards the huge cost of servicing the national debt. The cost of that, this year, is in the neighbourhood of £17,000,000 and it is essential, in view of the fact that our capital resources have been so far depleted, that we try to get some return for capital moneys spent.

Deputy Sweetman went on to complain about the fact that it has been found necessary to require farmers to make a small contribution towards the transport of ground limestone. There again he has attempted to misrepresent the position by claiming that there has been a decrease in the amount provided by the Exchequer for that purpose in this year. He is well aware that that is not the case. In actual fact, there is an increase in the amount provided by the Exchequer of £270,000.

Mr. Sweetman

Indeed there is not. The gross amount is down.

Mr. K. Boland

There is an increase of £270,000 in the amount being provided by the Exchequer to subsidise ground limestone.

Mr. Sweetman

The amount to be paid is less than it was last year.

Mr. K. Boland

The total amount paid by the Exchequer last year was £175,000 and the remainder was provided out of the American Grant Fund. That fund has now been exhausted and so it is necessary to raise the money from the taxpayer. We are, in fact, providing £270,000 more than was provided by the Exchequer last year. There is an increase in that respect of the money provided by the Government.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.