Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 13 May 1965

Vol. 215 No. 10

Committee on Finance. - Resolution No. 20—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. P. Hogan

(South Tipperary): Before Question Time, I was giving a list of the number of houses built by local authorities from 1954 onwards. In relation to Cork, I had got as far as 1962, for which the figure was 226. For 1963, it was 182. The Taoiseach said this morning that he was horrified to find 1,500 empty houses in Dublin. Of course, he has hindsight now and I think we should all be very happy that there were 1,500 empty houses in Dublin at that time. The demand at the moment is for 10,000 houses and that demand would be larger by 1,500, were it not for the fact that these 1,500 houses were there.

For the edification of new Deputies, some of whom seem to have been reared in ivory towers, let me give statistics of the building that took place in Dublin over a period. In 1954, local authority houses built by the inter-Party Government numbered 1,368; in 1955, the number was 1,922; in 1956, 1,311; in 1957, 1,564; in 1958, 1,021. Then Deputy Lemass returned to Government and discovered 1,500 empty houses. In 1959 the number of houses built in Dublin by local authority effort was 460; in 1960,505; in 1961, 277; in 1962, 392; in 1963, 643. That is the picture of the building activity under Fianna Fáil. In one year, 1961, only 277 local authority houses were built in Dublin, an area occupied by 25 per cent of the total population of the State.

To complete the picture, let us take housing activities by local authorities over the country as a whole. In 1954, 5,643 local authority houses were built; in 1955, 5,267; in 1956, 4,011; in 1957, 4,784; in 1958, 3,467; in 1959, 1,812; in 1960, 2,414; in 1961, 1,463; in 1962, 1,238; in 1963, 1,828. Clearly, that building rate would not meet ordinary obsolescence, which is circulated at 1¼ per cent. Some people may be more strict in their calculation of obsolescence rates, but, taking it at 1¼ or 1½ per cent, the rate of building activity represented in the figures I have just quoted would not meet even obsolescence.

The Taoiseach stated that the building target envisaged in the Second Programme for Economic Expansion was reached last year. Perhaps it was. I cannot find particulars at the moment amongst these papers I have, but it is true that the amount of money allocated for building was not spent. It can hardly be contended that the Government are sincere in their housing programme when they fail to spend the money, money to the tune of £1.2 million, provided by the Dáil for the building of houses for our people. Every Deputy in this House must agree with me that the provision of housing for our people is the lowest in Europe. I have travelled fairly extensively in England, Scotland and on the Continent. Judging by what one sees on one's travels our housing situation here is extremely bad. Whole sections of the capital city are crying out for renewal. The same applies to the residential areas of Limerick. Many of our towns are old Norman towns and the buildings in them have long passed their allotted span. The present housing drive is nothing like adequate to meet the existing housing demand, much less improve the existing position.

The Minister for Local Government exposed his hand rather by his remark here during the debate on Local Government. I suggest he made the remark inadvertently. He said it was all right spending a lot of money on housing but we did not want to rush ourselves into the same position that happened under the previous inter-Party Government which went burst. The economic conditions, due to external causes, which prevailed at that time may have frightened the Government to a certain extent from expenditure on housing of the degree all of us would have liked to see. Surely, with all the boasting we have now about our affluent society, with Ministers making fancy speeches at every dinner to which they get an invitation, we could be a little bit more generous in our expenditure on houses for our people, for those who are unable through economic circumstances to provide houses for themselves.

The Taoiseach said, quite rightly, that social welfare expenditure and social investment in the broadest sense is dependent entirely on how successful our production drive and our economy are. It will, of course, largely depend upon the viability of our economy in the field of exports. There is a great deal of talk about industrialisation. Not for a moment do I decry industrialisation, but let us not forget the basic fact that any affluence we have is due largely to the export of agricultural produce, particularly cattle and meat. Of our exports last year of £222 million, cattle accounted for £66 million and meat for £34 million. From agricultural products or products of near-agricultural origin, I dare say our exports amounted to £140 million. It is nice to find the Taoiseach and various Ministers now paying such attention to the cattle trade, to find they have forgotten the sad, dark days when they were cutting their throats.

Mr. Haughey

For God's sake!

Mr. L'Estrange

"The British market is gone and gone forever, thank God."

Mr. P. Hogan

(South Tipperary): The Minister does not like to hear that.

We all welcome the social welfare benefits given to the most unprivileged sections of our community in this Budget. In general the country drew a sigh of relief that at last the plight of the old age pensioners and other social welfare classes was in a measure taken off their conscience. I regret it was not found possible to provide these classes with these benefits on the same day as the new taxation measures were introduced. I do not know how it has arisen that the social welfare classes and old age pensioners must wait from a May Budget until 1st August before they receive their new benefits. I understand as regards contributory pensions that they come into operation on 1st January. I should like to point out the probability that we will have on 1st of January another addition to the national health insurance stamps. These many little welts are imposed by the Government nicely and quietly throughout the year. They hope the public will have forgotten them in 12 months' time, and frequently they do.

I hope that those recipients of improved pensions who have also been getting home assistance will not be deprived of it because the Government have come to their aid and given them 10/-. A few days ago I put down a question to the Minister for Social Welfare asking him would he consider paying home assistance on certification of its necessity by local county council officials. His reply was, in effect, that that was a Budget matter. Since it is a Budget matter, I am submitting it to the Minister for Finance for his consideration. I do not know how many old age pensioners are also in receipt of home assistance supplementary to their old age pension. I do not know how the number varies from county to county and whether it is big or small. Social assistance, in so far as it is provided by county councils, must be rather irregular in its distribution.

I can well imagine that the counties where, perhaps, it is most needed are possibly counties less able to pay or less liberal in their paying. Judging by the distribution, for example, of health cards along the western seaboard, I could imagine some counties finding greater difficulty in providing a reasonable amount of home assistance to the very poor than in the wealthier counties. This should not be a matter paid for out of rates. Here is a central service, part of the social welfare service, which could well be provided out of central funds and administered by the Minister for Social Welfare.

I regret that, in providing this extra social financial help, the Minister should have seen fit to introduce what is, in effect, a new means test. In truth, we have enough of them already. Now, he has introduced a new means test of £26. If they are under £26, they will get the full 10/-; if they are over £26, they will get only 5/-. The majority, I know, will get the 10/- and only a minority will get the 5/-, but it is rather cheeseparing. It was not worth the effort and will cause a certain degree of annoyance. Most old people will have concluded by now that they are getting the 10/-. In two months' time they will be very annoyed to find that, in fact, they are getting only 5/-. When the Minister was giving the 10/-, he should have given it over all, without making a differential at the £26 income level. To-day, £26 as an annual income is neither here nor there. It is a rather cheeseparing attitude to adopt that, due to the efforts of the Party on this side of the House——

Mr. Haughey

You voted against part of the taxation.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Only the petrol.

Mr. Haughey

That would have cut it down.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

You have sufficient money to pay the pensions without the tax on petrol.

Mr. Haughey

He wants to increase it. It is typical of Fine Gael. He wants more benefits and less taxation.

Mr. L'Estrange

You should mind the hens.

Mr. Haughey

You should look after your job. You have not been very successful so far.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order! Deputy Hogan should be allowed to continue.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. P. Hogan

(South Tipperary): The Minister expects to secure £1.3 million from the increase of 3d per gallon in the price of petrol. This is a tax on industry. The amount of revenue on every gallon of petrol was, I understand, up to now 3/- per gallon. It will now be 3/3d on every gallon of petrol bought. The position now is that motoring here will be more expensive than in Northern Ireland or England. We will be the most expensive motoring country in the British Isles. I am not concerned particularly —in fact I am not concerned at all— with private motorists. It is a pleasure for them and in so far as we are prepared to tax more our whiskey, cigarettes and beer, I suppose we can say it is fair to tax private motorists for the pleasure of driving.

I understand it is agreed that 80 per cent of the petrol used here is used for purely commercial purposes. This 3d extra will be a very severe burden on the many people who use commercial vehicles for their livelihood. Taxi and hackney drivers, commercial travellers, breadvan drivers who go around our towns, and lorries using petrol will be severely hit. Many private lorry firms suffer already from the restrictions imposed on them over the years to keep CIE economically viable. Farmers bringing milk to creameries—most farmers nowadays use road trailers for this purpose—will be very hard hit. They use these trailers in my part of the country, at any rate, because the modern roads are not suitable for horse vehicles. The Government for that reason are ill-advised to put this extra tax on petrol.

At the beginning there was a general reaction that this was a good Budget in so far as it provided extra benefits for the lower income classes. When you come to examine it, you find that for the total social welfare increases only £3.2 million has been provided out of a total estimated revenue expenditure of £242.8 million. We could say, on that basis, that social welfare investment is nothing we can be very proud of and that it is not comparable with the social investment percentages in other countries.

I am disappointed in this Budget in that there is no reference to improvements in our health services. Perhaps we might hear something from the Minister for Health when he comes to present his Estimate, but, judging from the replies obtained from that source so far, it is a matter of: "This matter is receiving my attention and it will receive every consideration in due course." Now that we have had a Select Committee sitting here for 3½ years, of which the present Minister for Health was a member, may one express the hope that he will be able to give us some indication in the near future what he intends to do with regard to our health services?

I must again express my regret at the continuing attitude of the Government as regards prices. Consumer prices have been raised 8.1 per cent between November 1963 and February 1965; yet we can find no evidence of any change of attitude or any real thinking on the part of the Government on the fundamental question of price control. Fine Gael, during the election campaign, in their literature, advocated a prices-incomes policy. Considering the Minister for Agriculture has not seen fit to follow our guidance by providing pound for pound for the agricultural organisation, and which was suggested in our policy programme, maybe the Minister for Finance may see fit to follow our suggestion of developing something on the lines of an incomes-prices policy.

It has always been insisted by the Government that price control is impracticable, only justifiable during periods of extreme national emergency. I recognise there may be considerable difficulties in the implementation of anything in the way of price control, but I am equally convinced, if we are ever to have any measure of industrial peace here for a protracted period, we must make some effort towards price control, particularly in the essential commodities.

We all desire that we should have freedom from economic unrest. When any group of wage or salary earners get an increase, the next day prices go up. The wage earners are then biding their time for the next round. I would strongly urge on the Minister to get down to formulating something on the lines of an incomes-prices policy. This matter is being studied at present by the British Government. It will be much more difficult there but even so, they are attempting to do it. I suppose, as usual, when they do it, we will naturally follow.

The question of grants by Foras Tionscal and the question of semi-State bodies are matters which must have been agitating the minds of Deputies on every side of the House. For GEC's subsidiary, a large grant was given by Foras Tionscal but, within a year, the company folds up. That highlights the necessity for greater supervision of grants and loans. I understand that special terms are arranged for loans exceeding £250,000. One would expect that where special terms are provided there would be adequate investigation of the probable viability of the project concerned.

The relative autonomy semi-State bodies enjoy is defended in this House on the argument that if too much interference occurs it cuts across their proper functioning and that undue information extracted from them may make it difficult for them to operate. It is worth considering again the establishment of all-Party sub-committees of this House for a closer supervision of the activities of semi-State bodies. That great democracy, the United States, uses sub-committees extensively for this work. From questions which have been asked, I gather that the Taoiseach does not agree to having such sub-committees for this purpose.

The Committee of Public Accounts merely examines revenue; it does not go into the detailed activities of semi-State bodies. The time has now arrived to have another look at the desirability of having select committees of this House, manned by people with special knowledge, to investigate in a general way the activities of semi-State bodies which have now assumed such great importance in our economy not to speak of public expenditure. This Dáil, in effect, is no longer designed to meet modern circumstances and is largely a talking shop while the actual work is done behind the scenes by various semi-State bodies and officials of one type or another.

The Minister should re-examine the matter of death duties. I understand that they do not amount to much more than 1½ per cent of total revenue. No Minister for Finance likes to discard any source of revenue but if death duties were abolished we might attract foreigners to settle in this country when they retire. Jersey enjoys a very nice economy because beer, whiskey and cigarettes are available there at reduced prices. Taxation is low and many people retire there. These people bring money into the Channel Islands. Sometimes they buy houses. They do not look for employment and they do not displace anybody. They do not send any money out. That is the structure on which Jersey's economy is built. It might be worth while considering the abolition of death duties with a view to securing ultimately, perhaps, a greater revenue. I admit it is a gamble but then is this new national loan not a gamble and is the Minister not a member of a gambler's Government?

Mr. Moore

This is the first Budget to be introduced by our new Minister for Finance. The increases to be given to old age pensioners and others are very welcome. We do not claim that they represent the ultimate in social security and that these people have suddenly reached the affluent stage. The increases represent a declaration of our intention to create a society in which the under-privileged and the needy will be looked after and assured of their part in the nation and provision will be made to keep them in not less than frugal comfort.

The speeches by Deputy Cosgrave and Deputy Corish were reasonable. We have now got agreement that we can build a State with social security, full employment and prosperity on lines which suit the character and spirit of our people. This morning, the Taoiseach mentioned that the affluent society is not necessarily a happy one. One of the most progressive States in Europe, which boasts of having the best social welfare services, has the highest suicide rate. In building up our new society, we must realise the truth of the statement that it is not by bread alone that man liveth. There are spiritual considerations also which must be kept in mind if we are not to go over completely to a materialistic welfare state.

During the general election campaign, there was much talk about the welfare state and an affluent society. In order to have these, we must have a sound economy. In his Budget speech, the Minister said that there cannot be social advance except on the basis of economic advance, and the more economic progress is made the more social progress is possible. The plain fact of the whole policy of Fianna Fáil and the purpose of their economic planning is to bring social benefits to a stage at which we can all be proud of them, no matter what Party we belong to. I believe the best chance we have of reaching that stage is through the Fianna Fáil Party and their policy.

I sat here for a long time last night and I heard two speakers from the Fine Gael benches talk on housing. They made very convincing speeches indeed. However, one member knew very little about the subject on which he was speaking. One member actually said that no mention of housing appears in the Budget speech. In his Budget Statement the Minister mentions that there is an increase of £4½ million for housing, bringing the total sum for housing this year to £20 million. Of the £20 million, over one-half is spent on local authority building.

Each time a member speaks about housing, the unfortunate Dublin Corporation is always criticised for what it has and has not done. It may be well to go back a few years, to the time when we had all the vacant houses on our hands, and to what caused that situation. We remember in 1956 there was a credit squeeze and at the same time the import levies were imposed. They were probably necessary but they had an ill effect on many people in employment. During the credit squeeze, the total operations of Dublin Corporation's Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts department came to a standstill. On one occasion the Dublin builders came to see the Housing Committee and asked for money to keep their loans going. The chairman on that occasion, who is not a member of my Party, had to tell them that he had no money. Because of the slowing down in building and the falling off in demand for houses through emigration, the huge scheme at Coolock in north-east Dublin had to be suspended. We did not regret the fact that we had 17,000 houses. We wanted the houses. We regretted the fact that there were no tenants for them. There were no workers. The building workers had emigrated with great bitterness in their hearts and never came back.

In 1957, there was a change of Government and admittedly for the next two years, housing development was small, for the simple reason that one cannot just decide to build without preparation. There has to be a plan, a site, and so on. Thank God, we have got over that bad period and Dublin Corporation are at the moment building 1,500 dwellings and have placed orders for 1,350 more. That excludes the temporary chalet type caravans and the Ballymun scheme.

I heard a speaker criticise the Minister for Local Government yesterday. The Ballymun scheme is the brainchild of the Minister. It was he who conceived it, first of all. He sent six or seven members of the Dublin Corporation to Europe to examine the new system-type building there. We saw the system and told him we thought such building could play a big part in solving, as far as was possible, the Dublin housing problem. That scheme has started and for the next three years it will give 1,000 dwellings a year. These are supplementary to the ordinary housing programme.

When this first started, there was uneasiness in trade union circles that it might injure the prospects of the building workers. The Corporation and the Minister were able to assure the unions that this was a supplementary programme and that we would continue to build on the traditional methods. So long as Dublin is a growing city, we will have a housing problem, just as any living city has. As somebody said the other day, the only city that has no housing problems is a dead city. Dublin is a living and vibrant city at the moment and will continue to be so as the economy expands and as we move towards prosperity.

I never believe in making political capital out of the housing shortage and I would not have mentioned the fact today except that it was said last night that there was no mention of housing in the Budget. Apart from that, one speaker criticised the Dublin Corporation. It is true we have a serious housing problem on hands but we are overcoming it and I say that within 18 months it will no longer be a serious problem. We will not have enough dwellings but we will at least have families of a father, mother and one child living in proper housing conditions.

Since the Fianna Fáil Government came into office in 1957, they have never on any occasion allowed lack of necessary capital to hold up the housing drive and that is a tribute to their policy and their Ministers.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

The last speaker decided to hold up his hands and say: "I do not want to make political capital out of housing". Having tried to stick the knife in and say there was no money for housing in the days of the inter-Party Government and houses were vacant because the workers had to clear out, he holds up his hands in holy horror and says that he would not like to bring housing into the political arena. Now, if this debate did nothing more than put on the records of the House, from no less a person than the Taoiseach himself, that the day the inter-Party Government left office they left 1,500 houses unoccupied in the city of Dublin, it is something to be grateful for.

Mr. Haughey

It was because of emigration; the people were all gone.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Where to? Where are they today?

Mr. Haughey

That is why we have the housing problem.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Let the Minister for Agriculture stick to his hens and I shall tell him where they are. The people who are now looking for houses in Dublin are the people who have been driven off the lands of Ireland by the policy of the Fianna Fáil Government. Those are the people. The head of the household migrated and the family came to the city of Dublin and that is where they are. That is why you have had a shortage of houses.

Mr. Moore

There are 100 families on the housing list who came back from Britain.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Where are they; where are they living?

Mr. Moore

They are here in Dublin. They are living with their in-laws, and so on.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

The position is, from the list published by the British Government, that the rate of emigration is up to 25,000 per year. How can they come back in such droves if the rate has gone up to 25,000 a year?

Mr. Moore

Our records are much more reliable.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Much more reliable than those of the British Government? They told me in 1957 that I was holding up money from them, that there was no money available for them, that there was a shortage of houses and they wanted to build houses. Now the Taoiseach comes along and tells us there were 1,500 houses vacant at that particular time— 1,500 we left there for the people. What has happened since? Deputy Moore tells us there would be a recession in the building of houses for a year or two. Let me give him the figures given to me by the Minister for Local Government in reply to a question by me on 24th May, 1961. I quote from Volume 189, column 749 of the Official Debates of 24th May, 1961. I asked a simple question:

... the number of private dwellings and local authority houses erected in the State in each of the years ending 31st March, 1954 to 1961, inclusive.

This is just a simple way of testing the veracity of what Deputy Moore has said. The Minister's reply was that the inter-Party Government built 5,107 houses in 1954. There were private houses built with SDA loans and other loans. In 1955, 4,858 houses were built; in 1956, the number was 5,368; and in 1957, 5,561. That is the last year the inter-Party Government were in office.

Then the Fianna Fáil Government took over. Listen to this for a record. During the first year after the Fianna Fáil Government took over, the number of houses built dropped 2,000, from 5,561 to 3,559. In the second year, the number fell to 2,626, just one half. I understand the Deputy said they were planning at that time, that they had not got into operation, that they had not got cracking, as they called it. In 1960, 3,190 houses were built and in 1960, 3,800 houses were built. The Government did not build those houses. They were built with State grants. The number fell from 5,000 to just under 4,000 in the short period of six years.

What about local authority housing, about which the Deputy was concerned? At the same column of the same volume of the Official Report the Minister stated that on 31st March, 1954, when the inter-Party Government were in office, the local authorities built 5,600 houses, in 1955, 5,200, in 1956, 4,011, and in 1957, 4,700. We then went out of office and in 1958, 3,400 houses were built, in 1959, 1,800, in 1960, 2,400, and in 1961, 1,400. That was Fianna Fáil progress in building houses. As I said at the outset, if this debate did nothing else, at least in it the Taoiseach admitted that we left them 1,500 vacant houses. Instead of a shortage of houses, and instead of no money being available, there were 1,500 houses in Dublin city, unoccupied and awaiting tenants.

Let me go on now to something else. As Deputies know, the local authorities receive their money from various grants made by the Department of Local Government. One grant which was made available when the inter-Party Government were in office was, as it is today, a grant for water and sewerage schemes. At column 755, volume 189, of the Official Report, the Minister for Local Government gave us the figures of capital expenditure on sanitary service works. In 1954, the inter-Party Government spent £1,400,000, odd, on sanitary services, in 1955, £1,500,000, in 1956, £1,800,000, and in the last year of the inter-Party Government the figure was the highest ever, £1,995,000. We then went out of office and the figure fell in 1958 to £1,500,000, in 1959 to £1,600,000 and in 1960, four years after the inter-Party Government went out of office, to £1,281,000. That was money granted by the Department of Local Government to the local authorities.

There is one other figure which I should like to quote from column 757 of the same volume of the Official Report. I asked the Minister for Local Government the total number of men employed by local authorities on road works during those years. He told me that in 1953-54, 21,000 men were employed, in 1954-55, 16,000 men, and in 1959-60 the figure fell to 13,000, odd. The figure fell from 21,000——

Mr. J. Lynch

When Fianna Fáil were in office.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Fianna Fáil were not in office in 1953-54.

Mr. J. Lynch

We were.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

We came into office in March, 1954, and Fianna Fáil had merely voted money.

Mr. J. Lynch

The Deputy has just quoted the figure for the year Fianna Fáil were in office at 21,000.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

All they had done was voted money, as they voted money last year. They did not expend it. They voted £1½ million for housing last year and never expended it. Can the Minister explain that to me?

Mr. Moore

Will the Deputy not accept the fact that in 1956 Dublin Corporation had no money for housing? Surely that is a fact?

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Had you not 1,500 houses vacant?

Mr. Moore

That was in 1957.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

When we went out of office in March, 1956, we left those houses vacant. Why did you not fill them? What did you want to build more for?

Major de Valera

Does the Deputy want to re-open the famous motion which was being debated when they went out of office? I can get the record.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

I will go over the facts again for Deputy de Valera. He was not here earlier when the Taoiseach spoke. The Taoiseach told us for the record that when he came into office in 1957 he found there were 1,500 houses vacant in the city of Dublin.

Mr. J. Lynch

Thanks to you.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

We had built them.

Major de Valera

They were vacant because the people had emigrated.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

We had built 1,500 houses.

Major de Valera

The Deputy cannot bluff his way. The record is there. We had put down a motion.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

If Deputy de Valera had come into the House earlier in this debate he would know that it was clearly stated by the Taoiseach that he was amazed to find 1,500 houses vacant.

Major de Valera

Bluff and bluster will not get the Deputy anywhere.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

I am only giving facts.

Major de Valera

I wish the Deputy would.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

These are the facts. Deputy de Valera was not here when the Taoiseach spoke. The Taoiseach told us that to his utter amazement he found 1,500 houses vacant. Where did the money come from to build them? We built them. Is not that much better than seeing the picture of the unfortunate woman in the papers yesterday sitting on the pavement with a placard saying: "I have no where to go. I was evicted from this condemned house yesterday?" I do not think any sane man would have any difficulty——

Mr. Moore

May I ask one question?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

How is it that every time I get up to speak I am continuously interrupted?

Mr. J. Lynch

The Deputy loves it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Moore has already spoken.

Mr. Lindsay

Deputy Moore is recovering from a rebuke from the Minister for Agriculture.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

The Minister has introduced his Budget and he has told us about the taxes which he imposed. I wonder could we get an assurance from him that this is the last Budget that will be introduced this year? Could we have an assurance that no further taxation will be introduced? Could we have an assurance that there will not be another petty Budget? After Fianna Fáil came into office the last time we had an autumn Budget and a spring Budget. Immediately before the previous Government went out of office, they introduced a petty Budget putting a penny on a telephone call if you used a coinbox. That is a sneaky way of procuring revenue. Why did they not wait until Budget day to declare: "This is another method of taxation; we want another penny"? If we could get the assurance from the Minister that there would not be another Budget it would go a long way to ensuring stability in so far as finance and taxation are concerned, which would be a very good thing.

Last weekend there was a leading article in one of the English newspapers, written by a gentleman whose name I do not recall, on the question of tourism. Before I move to that, let me finish the subject I was dealing with. The Minister has put taxes on certain commodities and he has also informed us he will float another loan, or bond issue. If ever anything could be described as a gamble this bond issue is such. It is repayable with 50 per cent interest after a period of 15 years, or one might take a chance of drawing a bond in every 40 and get payment at the end of twelve months.

I am not decrying the bonds. I hope they are successful. However, I cannot help remembering when the prize bonds were introduced. The Minister's colleague, the present Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, said the country had come to a very low level when we had to run it on a raffle. He was applauded by the backbenchers of Fianna Fáil for saying the country was being run on raffles. He said it was a disgrace. Not only did Fianna Fáil keep the money, the proceeds of the raffle, but under this bond plan they are trying to keep the prize as well because one must wait 15 years before getting what amounts to 4 per cent per annum on one's investment. I hope it is a success but I should much prefer to see money raised on the system of prize bonds in existence, with an annual draw, or through national loans.

Sometimes in Opposition we are asked: "It is all right to criticise the actions of the Minister for Finance in raising money but can you suggest an alternative?" I am not the Minister for Finance. It is not my duty to suggest means and methods whereby sufficient money can be raised to run the State for the coming year, but one of the things, I submit, the Minister has overlooked—Deputies Sweetman and T. F. O'Higgins referred to it earlier—is a tax on dancehalls. I remember when £125,000 was pulled in from such a tax. The Minister is well aware that one of the crazes and curses of the country is bingo. Thousands of pounds are being offered week after week, night after night, as bingo prizes. Why are these luxury pastimes not taxed?

Why have the pipeful of tobacco and the eyeful of whiskey of the old age pensioner to take a rap while those young people can sport themselves and enjoy these curses and crazes which could yield much heavier revenue if they were curbed in some way? It is a matter which the Minister, through expediency or otherwise, has overlooked. It is one of the methods, I suggest, by which the Minister could ensure that some relief of taxation is achieved to the benefit of others.

It has been suggested that on this side of the House we have no method whereby expenditure could be cut down. I shall offer a suggestion to the Minister now which I hope he will pass on to his colleague, the Minister for Social Welfare. We have expended considerable capital throughout the country in the building of employment exchanges. Some of the finest buildings in the State have been erected to house the staffs of the Department of Social Welfare. In the small town of Dungloe we have expended a considerable amount in that way. The same applies to towns throughout the country.

The function of these exchanges at the moment is to pay out unemployment benefits and assistance benefits only. The Department of Social Welfare also distribute disability pensions, dental and optical grants, maternity benefits, but these moneys are not paid out through the local offices of the Department. They are still paid out through this colossus created at Arus Mhic Dhiarmada. If the Minister is keen to economise in that Department, if he is keen to decentralise, I appeal to him to decentralise the working of the Department of Social Welfare by giving the staffs in exchanges throughout the country authority to pay out disability allowances, optical, dental and maternity grants.

I know exactly how it is being done at the moment. I speak with experience as an employee of that Department. If one wants unemployment benefit or unemployment assistance one goes to the local exchange and after going through certain formalities one is paid there and then, either by cheque or by cash. But if one wants to procure disability allowances one must send a medical certificate to Arus Mhic Dhiarmada where there is a staff officer with about 14 writing assistants attached to one or two counties. There are in all ten such sections with one clerical afficer and a number of writing assistants in each.

A medical certificate comes in; it is checked by the clerical officer, cheques are written by the writing assistants and sent down to the local exchange or directly to the applicant. That could all be done very simply through the local employment exchange without any additional staff other than a few writing assistants. These writing assistants are all young girls, paid an average wage of between £6 and £8 a week. They are expected to live here in Dublin on that. They could live quite comfortably, I am sure, in the small towns in the country if there was decentralisation. It would also speed up the payment of these various claims. Deputies are writing continually to the Department to find out causes of delays in these payments.

I would ask the Minister for Finance to find out from his colleague the Minister for Social Welfare why these grants are not paid through the local exchanges, why they are not paid in the manner in which unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance are paid, thus cutting down considerably on expenditure in Arus Mhic Dhiarmada.

One other matter to which I should like to draw the Minister's attention is the manner in which many clerical officers were recruited in the old days through open competitive examination. When these clerical officers were recruited they were put on a differential salary basis. They were paid up to a maximum of £600 a year while they were single and after they were married they were paid a maximum of £800, plus £30 per annum for every child of that matrimonial union. In later years clerical officers were admitted other than by open competitive examination.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We seem to be discussing the administration of the Department of Social Welfare.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

We are discussing a method whereby Government expenditure may be cut down. I have given in detail a method whereby it could be cut in the Department of Social Welfare. Certainly I am not going to argue with you, Sir, but there is no use my generalising to the Minister and telling him to cut down unless I can tell him how.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This is a matter covered by an Estimate and it is not relevant to the debate on the Budget.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

I am not going to argue, but, as I said, I thought all suggestions made for the curtailment of expenditure were relevant.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is not so.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

If you rule me out, Sir, I cannot put it further but I shall raise it at a later date.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is a matter for the Estimate.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

One of the major industries at the moment is tourism and one thing we have to ask ourselves is what incentive is there in this Budget to improve that industry. We have to ask ourselves why do tourists come to a country: is it because of the scenery, the cheapness of living or the attractions of beach or city or country. Having considered these things, we must find out from experience what brought tourists to this country. There is no doubt that we have had a big influx of tourists up to this year. One thing that really attracted tourists after the War was the low cost of living here as compared with across the water. We should continue to examine the comparison between the cost of living here and across the water, from a tourist point of view.

Strange as it may seem, although this is an agricultural country, tourists who have made a close study of costs from their point of view find that bread, butter, cheese, eggs and bacon are dearer here than in England. All these commodities are produced here but are actually dearer here than in Britain. Prices in our hotels compare very unfavourably with those in Britain and one of the luxuries which tourists permit themselves is the alcoholic beverage but we are closing the gap very considerably indeed in regard to the cost of beer and spirits here and across the water and across the artificial Border. It may surprise people to know that before the Minister announced his Budget, beer cost 6d. a pint more here than in Britain. Now we have to add the additional charge which the Minister has placed on beer. It is all very fine to say we must procure additional revenue but one thing which we could do is kill the goose that lays this golden egg.

Mark you, there are many ways of killing that goose. I am only afraid, as the Minister's predecessor said here two years ago, that we are going to kill this goose which was laying this golden egg in the form of revenue from spirits, beer and tobacco. At that time the Minister's predecessor said that these commodities would not stand further taxation and that we must find other methods of taxation. The new method which he discovered was this turnover tax which was completely opposed throughout the State. Now, not only has he got the turnover tax but the present Minister goes back on the word of his predecessor and again plucks a feather or two from the goose.

I warn him that unless something is done to entice tourists to come here, whether by way of cheaper hotel accommodation, a lower cost of living, or cheaper luxuries, we may prevent them coming when they can skip across to France or Spain where sunshine is more or less guaranteed and where they can live much more cheaply. I always thought that in catering for tourists, we looked far too much towards the west and far too little towards the east. We spent practically all the money allocated to our tourist board on the building of luxury hotels to cater for our western visitors. When I say "western", I mean people from across the Atlantic. We overlooked visitors from across the Irish Sea. I do not wish in any way to take from the welcome we should extend to our friends from across the Atlantic but visitors from across the Irish Sea are much more beneficial to our economy and we should never forget it. We should endeavour to cater for them. Only the landlady in Dublin, the moderate guesthouse and the smaller hotel can cater for these people; the others have priced themselves out of that type of market.

The picture painted by the Minister when introducing his Budget in regard to all these industries which have been set up was a bright one. Like most of us, however, he received a bit of a jolt since then when he heard what happened in Dundalk but I am sure that today's Cork broiler project is a bigger jolt. I know there is no person who deplores the failure of this project to start than the Minister because it is his own native county, but it is too bad that this project should have been announced immediately before the general election, informing us of the number of farmers in east, west and mid-Cork who were to benefit from growing feedstuffs for the poultry for this industry. Now we are told that this factory will not go into production, for the present at least.

Why? We are told that it is lack of finance, not of Irish finance but of other finance because of a financial squeeze in London. I wonder what sort of concern was this which was depending upon finances which would be raised on the London market and which I presume would procure a grant from the Government. Some of the projects set up in the Minister's county—and I am not referring to the shipyard—might bear examination or, indeed, might not bear examination. It is much better to see these projects going out of production before Irish capital is put into them by way of grant or otherwise, although, as I say, we all regret that such a project could not materialise.

Today the Taoiseach said that the great majority of old age pensioners would benefit from the 10/- increase provided under the Budget. I wonder why the Minister did not go the whole hog and give it to all old age pensioners. It would have been the charitable thing to do, because by not giving it to all, he now creates the position that the means of old age pensioners must be re-investigated. This will cause considerable delay and possibly result in reducing pensions instead of increasing them. It would have been much better if the Minister had said: "We are giving the 10/- to the majority, so let us not quibble and give it to every old age pensioner."

The same applies to unemployment assistance. The Minister says he is giving the 10/-, irrespective of everything else, but we all know the ferret —because he is nothing else—of an investigating officer is out already on the warpath investigating means and possibly increasing means, thereby reducing home assistance before the increase can be granted. We are glad to see that these unfortunates are now to derive some benefit from the Budget. It is exactly what we said we would do if we got back into office. The only difference is that we said we thought it could be done without the imposition of taxation. Everybody knows one of the stimulants needed by the old age pensioner is the little drop of whiskey and the only luxury, possibly, he has is his pipe or packet of cigarettes, but now before you give him the extra 5/- or 10/-, you take some of it away on these little items he enjoys.

I think the Minister has overestimated his capital expenditure on housing. He has told us there will be an extra £4½ million, while he did not spend £500,000 of what he got last year. If he is going to be generous, as I know that the Minister in his heart would be, let him give 10/- to all the old age pensioners.

Mr. Crowley

I should like to compliment the Minister on his Budget. Everybody to whom I have spoken is astounded that a new Minister for Finance could do so much for so many people and affect so few. But that is only to be expected because, after all, the Minister has the gift of being a Corkman and Corkmen can achieve anything when they set out to do it.

Mr. T. O'Donnell

In Dublin.

Mr. Crowley

I have listened to many Opposition speakers talking about the additional taxation being imposed on the community because of the increased social welfare benefits. I should like to ask some of those speakers how they suggest those services could be financed, other than by taxation. I have not heard any of them give a satisfactory answer to that question. On the other hand, we stated categorically that additional taxes would definitely be needed to keep up the rate of expansion and provide for better social services. These objectives can be achieved and attained, as Deputy O. J. Flanagan said the other night, only by dipping into the pockets of the various individuals in the community and withdrawing a portion of their earnings.

The Government and the Minister did not just slap on these taxes without giving due consideration to the advantages to be gained from them, and in deciding the extent to which the services could be improved, they attempted to lighten the burden as much as possible for everyone. Just because we should like to give more social benefits to everybody does not mean we can do it. It is very easy for the Opposition to make promises. I remember, particularly during the by-election in mid-Cork, all the promises they made. I think somebody worked it out that if every promise given by the various speakers on the different platforms were to be implemented, it would cost the Exchequer £65 million, which is a lot of money. It was easy to make these promises because they knew they would not have to implement them.

I should also like to compliment the Minister on his tremendous initiative and enterprise in introducing a new type of national loan. But that is just what the public have come to expect from Fianna Fáil—initiative and enterprise.

There was a lot of talk about the rise in the cost of living but none of the Opposition speakers compared it with the rise in prices. There has been a rise in the cost of living but I want to give some figures to show how wages have kept ahead of the cost of living. Goods which in 1957 cost £100 now cost £133; wages which were £100 in 1957 are now £163, giving a net gain in wages of £33. In spite of Deputy P. O'Donnell's attempt to make people forget the last dismal months of the last Coalition, it is now a matter of history that they left a shrinking economy behind them and no amount of bluff or smart or slick talk can deny that fact.

Deputy P. O'Donnell referred to tourism in a rather critical vein but if the inter-Party people had had their way, there would have been a tax on every tourist coming into the country. The net receipts from tourism in 1958 were £18.5 million and in 1964, £32.9 million. At a very early stage, Fianna Fáil recognised that tourism would become one of the most important industries in our economy and they set out then, not by putting a tax on every tourist coming here but by giving every possible incentive, by advertising and sales promotion in the various countries of the world, to attract foreigners to our shores. That paid off handsomely.

The real test of a nation's economy is whether its gross national product is shrinking or expanding. Under the Coalition Government, it was shrinking rapidly; in the ten years prior to the First Programme for Economic Expansion, the gross national product had expanded at an average rate of only one per cent per annum. When Fianna Fáil took office, they set out to double that rate of expansion. At that time, according to the records, Fine Gael said this could not be achieved. In fact, not alone was it achieved, but the targets set in the First Programme for Economic Expansion were more than doubled. The economy expanded at an average rate of 4.3 per cent between 1958 and 1963. This trend continued right into 1964 and, I am sure, will continue into 1965.

It is obvious that, as a small island, this country must depend to an enormous extent on exports. Of course, the difference in exports between 1958 and 1954 was again colossal. In fact, in 1964, exports amounted to £222.4 million or more than double the 1956 level of £108.1 million. This, again, shows the initiative, planning and foresight on the part of the Fianna Fáil Government, who did not leave a stone unturned in order to ensure that the economy was boosted from every direction.

I heard Deputy O'Donnell refer to the broiler factory in my constituency in Bandon. I have had numerous meetings with the people associated with this project. I can assure the Deputy that anything that did occur was completely outside the scope of the Government. In fact, the directors were promised, in writing, £500,000 last June by a finance company in this country and only last Thursday that promise was gone back on. I do not think the Deputy is being fair when he criticises the Government in regard to this project. I also am very disappointed that this project is not going through at this moment because in Bandon alone, my home town, it would give employment to over 500 persons and I am sure Deputies on all sides of the House would be very anxious that it would go into production.

This broiler enterprise is only one of the enterprises started by the Fianna Fáil Government. Just because things have not worked out according to the way they should be working out the Opposition criticise it. Deputy O. J. Flanagan said here the other night that he felt that every effort should be made by the Government to give as much employment as possible in this country and should leave no stone unturned in an effort to attract anybody who is willing to set up industries here, for the reason that it is much better to have our people working in their own country, which is their right, and to be subsidised by the Government, than to be working in a foreign country.

So even if occasionally GEC does occur, the Government, like any individual or group of individuals, are not infallible and do make mistakes from time to time. Not that I admit that GEC was a mistake. GEC had already proved what they could do in Dunleer.

I would urge the Minister to try as soon as possible to do something for disabled persons. There is a case in my constituency of a mother and son who are completely crippled. The father, who was also crippled, died 12 months ago. The daughter had to come home from England to look after her mother, her father and her brother.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am afraid that it would not be relevant on this Resolution to go into individual cases.

Mr. Crowley

I just want to quote it as an example of cases in respect of which something should be done. The gross income of that household is £3 a week. I would urge the Minister to provide extra money for that type of case which, in my opinion, is most deserving. It is not the only such case. There are several disabled persons in the country who are suffering as a result of a serious lack of means.

I have only one criticism of the Budget and that is in respect of the price of petrol. This could hamper to a certain extent the distributive trade and also the many hundreds of commercial travellers who depend for their livelihood on being able to get around. The day when enormous expenses were paid to travellers is gone. Most travellers are on fixed expense accounts. So, the increase in petrol could have a very great effect on, and cause hardship to some travellers.

I have not quite calculated what the effect could be on the distributive trade but there are a great many small traders who have vans and lorries run on petrol and the increased tax will increase their costs of distribution.

In conclusion, I should like to compliment the Minister on a most imaginative and very charitable Budget.

Mr. Lindsay

A Budget is a many-sided document and involves every aspect of the national scene and at times, either for its goodness or for its badness, it is adequate to tax the capacity and ingenuity even of a Corkman. We have been told by the last speaker, Deputy Crowley, that a Corkman when he sets himself out to do something, can do almost anything. Deputy Crowley's one criticism of the Budget was in respect of the petrol tax. In the division, Deputy Crowley voted for the petrol tax. Today, he spoke critically of it. Amongst other things, Corkmen may have the capacity for rapid political conversion and even in speeches they have the capacity for an equally rapid political reconversion. I have often wondered about how people can manage to say one thing and do another; how they can manage to vote for the imposition of taxation or for the implementation of certain aspects of policy in this or the other House of the Oireachtas and then speak against their very act of voting. However, I suppose that is part of the Party system and that is the system which enables the Minister to bring in an unsatisfactory Budget.

A Budget is the annual exposition of the Government's economic policy, their policy of taxation, on the one hand, and their policy of expenditure, on the other hand, and side by side with that their attitude towards the social services. In the course of the general election campaign the Taoiseach at one stage stated that it would be necessary for his Party to consider what increases, if any, they would be enabled to give to the social services if returned to power. Later on in the election he was driven by the force of Fine Gael argument to take a stand on social services, to give them a certain priority. We take that as a very positive social win for our Party, if not accompanied by the electoral success that we would have liked.

Mr. Crowley

The Deputy did not do much for them when his Party was in office.

Mr. Lindsay

Deputy Crowley had better cease interrupting or I might enlighten him about what has been done by my Party, both in office and out of office, and particularly in regard to people who seek membership of it.

Mr. Crowley

That is a lie.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The word "lie" is unparliamentary and must be withdrawn.

Mr. Crowley

It is an untruth. The Deputy has not enlightened me on what his Party did in office.

Mr. Lindsay

I do not think my sole or primary purpose here is to enlighten the neophyte who is too lazy or too inexperienced to learn for himself.

Mr. Crowley

The Deputy said he would.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Lindsay is in possession.

Mr. Lindsay

The social services have been increased, on paper at any rate. We have the extraordinary situation of having an increase of 10/- on existing old age pensions and other such allowances. However, the increase of 10/- is only in respect of people whose income does not exceed £26 a year. I wonder where that figure of £26 a year was obtained. Unless I am mistaken the figure of £26 a year occurred in the original means test under the Old Age Pensions Acts as far back as 1911.

What will £26 a year or 10/- a week purchase for a person of 70 years of age or for any person? Will it not involve, in the first place, a considerable re-investigation all over the country of people whose means have already been assessed in relation to £52 10s. per annum, which was and is for certain cases the basis of investigation? It would be interesting to know what £26 a year would buy and what £26 represents by way of purchasing power not alone as far back as 1911 but even as far back as 1938 or 1939.

I should like to know from the Minister whether in his assessment of £26 a year the rate of residence, maintenance and support is incorporated in a family agreement or whether it is something implied from the manner of living of a family and whether that will be taken into account.

Mr. Crowley

The Deputy is so enlightened he might be able to answer it himself.

Mr. Lindsay

I thought if people from Cork set themselves to do anything, they could do it. Would the Deputy try to set himself to learn manners?

Mr. Crowley

I would not learn it from the Deputy anyway.

Mr. Lindsay

He should try.

Mr. Crowley

Impossible.

Mr. Lindsay

If Deputy Crowley is starting his campaign in the Eighteenth Dáil by throwing challenges of that kind, of an implied personal nature, across this House, his challenge will be taken up and dealt with accordingly, within the Rules of Order of the House, of course, and in keeping with the concept of good manners of which the Deputy does not seem to have heard so far. Perhaps he is one of those newly sent into the House to take part in this kind of parliamentary mudslinging.

While we welcome the increases in the social services, we fear that the taxation that has been put on side by side with them will help to fritter them away. Hard-pressed tobacco and spirits, in however small supplies they are required by old age pensioners, at 4d. per ounce and 2d. per glass, respectively, will do away with a considerable amount of the 5/- increase and whatever of the extra 5/- pensioners will succeed in getting on this re-investigation which I am sure will take place, if it is not already afoot.

Perhaps this Government were afraid to give further increases. Deputy Moore, at the beginning of his speech, said that one of the most progressive States in Europe, which boasts of having the best social services, also has the highest suicide rate. Were the Fianna Fáil Party afraid to increase social welfare benefits any further in case people would start committing suicide from an overdose of wellbeing? That would appear to be the case.

Having regard to his pre-by-election tendencies, I have to agree with Deputy Crowley when he criticises the imposition of 3d a gallon on petrol. In my view, this will mean a considerable rise —slow, steady and awkward—in distributive costs and it will hit hardest those areas furthest away from the distributing centres. That will be notably the case in relation to the west of Ireland, about the survival of which the Taoiseach and the Minister for Agriculture had so much to say and so much to promise in the course of the recent general election. They described it as the one major issue to be resolved and they talked about the battle for the survival of the west. With higher costs now for petrol, distributive costs will be higher and it is the people in the remoter, outlying areas, particularly the west, who will suffer most.

Speaking of the west, and I come from a western constituency, I want to say categorically that there is nothing of any consequence in this Budget for these people about whom so much was said and to whom so much was promised. There is an indication in the Budget that in the New Year there will be legislation making the rateable valuation the basis for the payment of employment assistance.

Mr. J. Lynch

And suitable financial provision as well in the Budget.

Mr. Lindsay

I have not been able to detect the suitable financial provision.

Mr. J. Lynch

It is in the £3.22 million expenditure.

Mr. Lindsay

Will all that be for the West?

Mr. J. Lynch

It is in the general increase.

Mr. Corish

There is a change.

Mr. J. Lynch

I had to add it up myself to get the answer on the other side of the page.

Mr. Lindsay

There must be something in that for other areas as well.

Mr. J. Lynch

Oh, yes. I am not denying that.

Mr. Lindsay

In that kind of distribution, irrespective of what Government are in power, we always feel in the West that we get the lighter weight of the package We will await with interest to see how this £3.22 million will be allocated.

Mr. J. Lynch

There is special provision for the smallholders' social assistance scheme and, in fact, the majority of the old age pensioners are from the West and other rural areas.

Mr. Lindsay

If I may come back for a moment to the old age pensioners, the majority of them live on holdings with married sons or daughters. Will they get the 10/- increase? They are already there on the holdings by virtue of their relationship and they get their clothing, maintenance and support. Will they come into the category of under £26 per year? I do not think they will.

Mr. J. Lynch

I cannot answer details like that, but I am sure most will qualify.

Mr. Lindsay

The Minister will have ample time between this and Tuesday to find out if this £26 qualification will be reckoned in relation to that right of residence, maintenance and support, whether that be by family agreement, or otherwise. Will that be taken into consideration even though the farm is in the grandfather's name? Will the old age pensioner be assessed as entitled to the rents, profits and such like, even though there is a son or daughter, with a wife or husband and a family, as the case may be. Do I make myself clear?

Mr. J. Lynch

Yes.

Mr. Lindsay

I am obliged to the Minister. This Budget means, of course, an increase in prices. That follows as the night the day. With increasing prices we will have, I am sure, a demand when the time comes for increased wages and salaries. All that is, I think, bad policy vis-á-vis exports because, the higher our prices for production, the greater will be the difficulty in the competitive markets of the world. I have no less an authority for saying that than a speech made by the Chairman of the Board of the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards in Dublin last night. Mr. Colur Barnes said—I quote from the Cork Examiner of Thursday, May 13th 1965——

We are clearly edging ourselves towards the position of being high cost producers. It is cheaper to build in Britain than in Ireland. It is cheaper to produce the majority of consumer items there than here. We can price ourselves out of the export business.

In my view that is a very serious warning of which the Government should take some cognisance in order to keep themselves right vis-á-vis the export market as at the present time and particularly to keep their eyes on the situation envisaged by 1970 when we will be in the position of having to join, or wishing to join, whichever you like, the European Economic Community where competition and prices will be of extreme importance.

There is not very much in this Budget, as far as I can see, for tourism. In passing, may I say I welcome the meeting in the last few days between Bord Fáilte and the Northern Ireland Tourist Board and the obviously good atmosphere that prevailed at that meeting. I welcome in particular the references made by the Northern Ireland representative when interviewed by Telefís Éireann. These are the things that are important.

Mr. J. Lynch

Can the Deputy not let Deputy Lindsay make his own speech?

Mr. Corish

I merely passed him a note because I want to know if he will resume on Tuesday.

Mr. Lindsay

Lest I be suspected of inter-Party re-union, Deputy Corish wants to know if I am resuming on Tuesday. That, of course, will depend on the fall of events as between now and Tuesday. In any event, I should like to tell both Deputy Corish and the Minister that I shall continue speaking until five o'clock. I was dealing with tourism. This is a subject into which we can go in greater detail on the Estimate for Transport and Power, but I should like to say now that prices —prices in relation to food, drink, hotels and so on—should be kept as much in line as possible with Northern Ireland and with Great Britain because the greatest potential, as Deputy P. O'Donnell said, from the point of view of the tourist industry is from Britain. They are the tourists who come in the greatest numbers and they spend much more money than do their American counterparts.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 5 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 18th May, 1965.