I move amendment No. 9:—

Before Section 15 to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) The duty of customs imposed by Section 20 of the Finance Act, 1952 (No. 20 of 1952), shall in respect of tobacco imported on or after the 1st day of October, 1954, be charged, levied and paid at the several rates specified in Part I of the Fifth Schedule to this Act.

(2) The duty of excise imposed by Section 19 of the Finance Act, 1934 (No. 31 of 1934), shall, as on and from the 1st day of October, 1954, be charged, levied and paid at the several rates specified in Part II of the Fifth Schedule to this Act.

(3) Sub-sections (3) and (5) of Section 19 of the Finance Act, 1934, shall apply to tobacco which is chargeable with the duty of excise imposed by sub-section (1) of the section at a rate specified in Part II of the Fifth Schedule to this Act and for the purpose of such application references in the said sub-sections (3) to (5) of the said Section 19 to Part I of the Sixth Schedule to the said Finance Act, 1934, shall be construed and have effect as references to Part II of the Fifth Schedule to this Act.

(4) The rebate on hard pressed tobacco mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Finance Act, 1940 (No. 14 of 1940), shall, in respect of any such tobacco sold and sent out for use within the State by any licensed manufacturer on or after the 1st day of October, 1954, be at the rate of two shillings and eight pence per pound.

(5) For the purpose of this section, importation shall be deemed to take place at the time when the entry of the relevant goods under the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, is delivered.

This is another of the series of amendments which I have moved to this Bill, the purpose of which is to reduce taxes to the extent that members of the present Government, and Deputies behind them, had suggested was possible prior to the general election. The most remarkable thing about the discussion upon these amendments is that no member of the Government has thought fit to explain to the Dáil why it is not possible to reduce these taxes now. They had repeatedly asserted in the past that these taxes were unnecessary and had expressed confidence in their ability to reduce them, if the opportunity were given them. Deputies will recollect that the present Taoiseach had said that he would repeal these taxes in ten minutes if he became head of the Government, and that he would resign in one minute if he found himself unable to do so.

Perhaps equally remarkable is the fact that during the course of the debate not a single Deputy sitting behind the Government thought fit to ask the Government as to why a reduction is not possible. These Deputies seem to have forgotten completely the confidence they expressed before the election in their ability to force the Government to reduce taxes. Should they not now ask for an explanation as to why it cannot be done? Not a single one of them has sought that explanation. Apparently they are content to vote to maintain these taxes without knowing why. The definite pledges and undertakings given by them to the electorate are still fresh in our minds. The speed at which they are discarding these pledges and repudiating their undertakings is rather nauseating. They should at least make some pretence at seeking a reasonable explanation as to why it is necessary to maintain these taxes at their present level.

If the Government will say that these taxes cannot be reduced, that the revenue that they will yield is required for the purpose of meeting the cost of necessary Government services, then the position will be clear to the public. The issue between us during the course of the election campaign was whether these taxes were necessary or not. We said that they were necessary, that the Budget could not be balanced without the revenue which they represented except at the cost of a serious curtailment in the scope of Government services. Deputies opposite said that these services could be maintained and taxes reduced at the same time. If that was not so, will they say so? If the explanation is that the Government has now found out, and Deputies behind them are beginning to suspect, that during the election campaign they were talking nonsense and, if they stand up now and say so, it will end this discussion. We know they were talking nonsense. They are beginning to suspect it. Some members of the Government know that in that respect we were right and they were wrong but will they say that?

Will the Minister for Finance stand up and say that he is resisting the reduction of these taxes because he cannot forgo the revenue which they will bring in? That is the explanation which the Dáil is entitled to get, an explanation which the public will understand. It is treating the Dáil with contempt for Ministers to ask the House to resist these amendments without giving a reason for that resistance. It is treating the public with contempt, in view of the declarations that were made to them and the promises that were given to them, to refuse now to cut down these taxes without giving a single reason for maintaining them.

Do Deputies not think their constituents are entitled to an explanation of the votes they gave yesterday? Is there one Deputy opposite who will attempt to give that explanation? If that explanation is not given it merely demonstrates the contempt that Deputies have for those who voted for them.

For Deputy Lemass to get up in this House and talk in terms of the word "nauseating" is, to say the least of it, the most impertinent suggestion that could be made to this House by that Deputy. Deputy Lemass knows very well—no one knows better, as I have already said—that these amendments are nothing but a piece of showacting, play-acting and disgraceful play-acting at that. Deputy Lemass knows that he has no case to make in respect of them and, because he had no case to make, he adopted the normal course adopted by a person who has no case—he put up here a case attempting to put into our mouths a case that was never made.

The other night, during the course of the discussion on the Second Reading of this Bill, I went to some pains to show, and gave quotation after quotation from the general election campaign, that the complaint of the Fianna Fáil Party at that time was not that we were promising too much but that we were making no promises. Now they come to us to-day and try to make a different case altogether.

Deputy Lemass knows full well that the quotations he read yesterday from Mr. Costello and others dealing with the £10,000,000 taxation were quotations—though he did not give the dates of them—of what was said in 1952 and the Deputy and the House know that there is a very different situation to-day from the situation that obtained in 1952. At the time of the Budget in 1952 current expenditure was estimated in my predecessor's Budget speech in April 1952 as being £94,826,000. This year it was estimated by my predecessor as being £109,935,000. If we are to discuss 1954, let us discuss it in terms of 1954 and let us not try to make the dishonest case, as Deputy Lemass made yesterday and wishes to repeat to-day, of treating 1954 on a 1952 basis.

I want to draw attention to one matter. Deputy Lemass spent a lot of time last night giving us quotations and reading for the benefit of the House advertisements appearing over the names of candidates in, I presume, the election campaign. In one of the morning newspapers the words of Deputy Lemass in which I am interested are reported exactly, as follows:—

"In another advertisement it stated: ‘The Labour Party seeks the support of the people in the forthcoming election so that they can bring about a reduction in the price of tobacco, cigarettes, beer and spirits—Vote No. 1——'"

and the candidate's name happens to be my own. I am asking Deputy Lemass, through you, Sir, to give the date on which that advertisement appeared.

It was a leaflet.

There is only one leaflet and it is here. It is in my possession. I have no complaint against the reporter whose report appears on the morning paper. He is just doing his work and he reported what was said in the House. The Official Report of yesterday's debate will prove that Deputy Lemass said "another advertisement". Being my own director of elections I can say that there was but one leaflet issued and I defy anyone to show that such was stated.

My sole reason for intervening now is to let the House know that Deputy Lemass has been politically so dishonest that he is prepared to say advertisements appeared. Unfortunately he barked up the wrong tree when he referred to a Deputy who had but one advertisement throughout the whole campaign. I believe I am entitled at this stage to ask Deputy Lemass either to prove in substance the correctness of his statement or openly withdraw it here—one or the other.

It is most unusual——

I am asking Deputy Lemass to explain. I am entitled to do that.

It is most unusual for a Party the size of the Fine Gael Party, that is supposed to be a responsible Party, to run away from its election pledges and to give no excuse. The Minister for Finance described as play-acting and disgraceful play-acting the moving of amendments in the House to give effect to the promises upon which Fine Gael got sufficient votes to form a Government. The 15 lawyers in Fine Gael may parse and make fine points as to what they promised and what they did not promise and what they were pretending to promise but the average voter in the country was asked clearly by the leaders of Fine Gael and by their supporters and canvassers to vote for the Fine Gael candidates in order to "throw high taxation and high prices overboard." Every voter in the country who looked at the hoardings during the general election campaign could see 20 feet square advertisements appealing to the voters to "throw high taxation and high prices overboard." The only thing that has been thrown overboard by Fine Gael since they came into office were their promises.

And you.

And Fianna Fáil.

Fine Gael themselves will be thrown overboard when the people get a chance to have a crack at them again. It is a most disgraceful proceeding that when the members of the Front Bench of Fine Gael and the other Parties are reminded of the promises upon which they got support, they giggle and sneer and snigger in this Dáil. At least they should have some sense of shame but there is no shame in them.

Have you any?

They were prepared to promise anything in order to get votes and, to show the people how deeply they were fooled, they immediately throw their promises overboard.

Do I understand the intervention of the Minister for Finance to mean that he is repeating the statement that the Parties comprising the Government did not promise to reduce taxation?

The intervention of the Minister was to the effect that the quotations which the Deputy read out yesterday and which he pretended were made in 1954 were in fact made in 1952.

The quotations I read from the present Taoiseach or any Minister were from the Dáil Debates and I gave the column and the number of the volume. There was no question of any pretence about it.

I listened on three occasions and I did not hear the Deputy give the date.

Is there now a definite statement that the Government and the Deputies supporting the Government did not promise a reduction in taxation?

You stated yourself during the election campaign that we did not promise anything. Will the Deputy withdraw the unfounded and untrue speeches which he made during the campaign? He cannot have it both ways.

Why not?

Because I am not so foolish as to let you.

I told the people that these were phoney promises, that you did not mean one word of them.

They did not believe you.

I admit that. That is the purpose of the amendments. I have no doubt that this is an object lesson in political honesty to the Irish people. Is there any Deputy opposite who did not, in the course of the election, promise a reduction in taxation? Of course there is not one. Everyone knows that on every occasion on which they spoke in public and in every document they issued they suggested that there would be a reduction in taxation and, specifically, that a reduction in the taxes on beer, spirits and tobacco would follow the change of Government.

Why did you say "they made no promises"?

Is Deputy Desmond repudiating the Labour Party?

In view of the statement made by the Deputy in the House, I am asking him to say what paper it was in and what was the date.

I quoted from a leaflet——

In my possession is the one and only leaflet published by me as a candidate, and I am prepared to have a committee or anyone else examine it and see if there is one word in it to support the charge made by Deputy Lemass——

I am quoting from a leaflet issued by the Irish Labour Party.

On a point of order. Am I entitled to reply?

I am quoting from a leaflet issued by the Irish Labour Party headed: "The Labour Party Programme."

That is not the one you quoted yesterday.

This is the one which was issued during the general election.

The one you quoted yesterday stated specifically "Vote for Dan Desmond." You are caught out again.

I am going to quote from a leaflet issued by the Labour Party in respect of all their candidates.

You are not asked for that.

I am going to read it and I will keep on reading it as long as necessary and I will not be stopped by Deputy Morrissey's interruptions.

On a point of order. Deputy Lemass yesterday attributed to Deputy Desmond a certain statement in my hearing. Deputy Desmond has stated here and offered to prove that he made no such statement.

Then he is not a member of the Labour Party?

This is a point of order.

Is it not therefore incumbent on Deputy Lemass to withdraw the statement he made yesterday that Deputy Desmond issued this leaflet with "Vote 1 Desmond" on it or substantiate it?

I did not say Deputy Desmond issued it. He is a member of the Labour Party, is he not?

You read it out yesterday as being issued by Deputy Desmond.

Is the Labour Party programme published during the election campaign——

On a point of order. Deputy Lemass yesterday purported to quote from a document. The existence of that document has been questioned by the Deputy who was named by Deputy Lemass. When a Deputy purports to quote from a document, it is the custom to name the document and to produce it. The Deputy is not now naming the document. He is naming a document which he did not refer to yesterday in relation to Deputy Desmond. He has been caught out.

The Chair has no means of knowing what is in the document. These are all matters of fact, not matters of order. The Chair has no means of discovering what Deputy Lemass read from or what Deputy Desmond issued.

On a point of order. May I ask you, am I not entitled to protection when I can prove that a false statement has been made in this Chamber?

The Chair has no means of discovering whether Deputy Lemass made a false statement or not.

I want to deal with the question of a false statement. Here is the leaflet issued by the Labour Party. Was it issued on behalf of Deputy Desmond, or is he repudiating it? Did he repudiate it during the election campaign? It is headed: "The Irish Labour Party Programme".

You read out that leaflet yesterday as if it had at the bottom of it "Vote 1 Desmond". Does the Deputy admit that?

The leaflet I have is the leaflet issued on behalf of the Labour Party.

Deputy Lemass has been called upon to speak and he is entitled to speak and may not be interrupted except on a point of order. Deputy Desmond raised a matter which he considered a matter of order. The Chair has ruled that it is not a matter of order. The Chair has no means of advising himself as to what happened in respect to the document spoken of here. Deputy Lemass must be allowed to continue his statement without interruption.

On a point of order. May I ask you what protection will be afforded me against a misstatement? Am I not entitled to some protection?

It is in the nature of things that statements made on one side of the House will be contradicted by the other side of the House and the Chair has no means of reconciling these differences.

Is it correct that there have been occasions here when, members having repudiated statements made by other members, these statements had to be withdrawn?

Is the Deputy repudiating this? That is the question.

I want honesty in politics but, apparently, the Deputy does not.

Let us test the Deputy's honesty. Is he repudiating this document?

I am entitled——

Deputy Desmond must allow Deputy Lemass to make his statement without interruption. The Deputy may feel aggrieved, but he will be allowed an opportunity of saying what is the correct position according to him.

I have asked for protection against dishonesty.

The Chair is protecting the Deputy as far as is necessary. The Chair has no means of ascertaining whether Deputy Lemass is making false charges or otherwise.

This will go further than this Chamber.

It will. This document will be read in every constituency in Ireland. I will answer my own question. This document is being repudiated by the Labour Party. It is headed: "The Labour Party Programme." This is what the document says:

"The Labour Party seeks the support of the people in the forthcoming general election so that it can urge the new Dáil to give effect to the following measures which the Labour Party believes will provide prosperity and security for the people."

What is wrong with that?

Number 2 is "Reduction in the Price of Tobacco, Beer and Spirits."

Is Deputy Dan Desmond's name at the bottom of that?

The Labour Party is at the bottom of it.

What was the quotation you made last night?

Deputy Lemass has been caught out in a big lie.

Deputy Lemass must be allowed to make his speech without interruption. Other Deputies can present the position as it appears to them afterwards.

As I understand the position, Deputy Desmond regards it as misrepresentation of himself to say he stood in the election for the Labour Party programme.

You told a big lie last night and have been caught out to-day.

The case is made now that it is a lie to say that Deputy Desmond stood for the Labour Party programme.

It is a lie that arose in your fertile brain.

Is this document a product of my fertile brain? Is this Labour Party programme repudiated now? Is it?

There was never a document issued by the Labour Party or anyone else quoting what you said yesterday, saying that Deputy Desmond's name was at the end of it.

It is getting under your skin.

It is getting under your own skin.

If Deputies persist in interrupting I will have to name the Deputies who so persist. Deputy Lemass is entited to speak and should be allowed to do so.

On a point of order, has it not been the customary practice, during your time and the time of your predecessor, that when a Deputy got up here and denied a statement or challenged the accuracy of a statement attributed to him here, the other Deputy—if he was an honourable man —would accept the assurance given?

I will not accept that assurance.

I have to assume, and do assume without reserve, that every Deputy is an honourable man, but there is no statement. Deputy Lemass has not made a statement and been asked to withdraw it. He has not made any statement that he has been asked to withdraw.

It was a quotation.

I cannot verify or examine every document, and do not know whether Deputy Lemass has made a correct statement or otherwise.

On a point of order, could Deputy Lemass not produce the document which he purported to refer to yesterday?

That is no trouble. I am going to produce it all over Ireland. It is the Labour Party programme, published in all the newspapers and by leaflet all over Ireland—and it got votes for the Labour Party.

It is a long time since you got it as badly as you have got it now.

Deputy Morrissey need not try to cover up the Labour Party. He ran away from it.

Deputy Desmond's case, I understand, is that he did not stand in this election for the Labour Party programme.

Deputy Desmond's case is that he did not issue that leaflet and no one issued it for him.

I have already said that if Deputies persist in interrupting I will name the Deputies who do so. I am giving that as a last warning.

Including the Deputies on that side of the House who have been interrupting.

The Labour Party all contested the election on a programme which included——

And you said you were the Labour Party.

The group of Deputies calling themselves the Irish Labour Party conducted the election on a programme which included the reduction in the price of tobacco, beer and spirits. Did they or did they not? Was that your programme or was it not?

It is, was and will be— and what is wrong with it?

On a point of order, would you advise Deputy Lemass to address the Chair?

I ask all Deputies to observe the third person.

Was that the programme of the Irish Labour Party or not? It was, of course, and it was the programme on which Deputy Desmond and every other Deputy opposite contested the election and sought votes.

And we got them.

They are now systematically, vote after vote, going into the division lobbies to repudiate that programme. They will do it again in five minutes' time. Is not that so?

I hope so.

You undertook to do it but by your vote here——

I did not.

Those Deputies undertook that if elected they would vote here for a reduction in the duty on cigarettes and tobacco. That is what this amendment relates to. They will not vote for it, but against it. They are going to vote to keep up the taxes imposed on cigarettes and tobacco. Is not that right?

They are.

I will forecast that when the division is called Deputy O'Leary will vote to keep up the price of cigarettes and tobacco.

I will never vote for your amendment—that is one thing I will never do.

That is the only thing I am trying to establish—that you are now repudiating the policy on which you sought election. May I remind them that the Leader of their own Party, the present Minister for Industry and Commerce, gave this undertaking to his constituents:

"In view of the serious effect of increased taxation—"

this is a quotation from a circular letter sent out by Deputy Norton to his constituents—

"—on cigarettes, beer and spirits, which no doubt has had an injurious effect on your trade, I trust you will find it possible to give me your No. 1 vote in the forthcoming election and kindly ask your relatives and friends to do likewise, so that with the aid of the Labour Party—"

Deputy O'Leary need have no doubt as to which Labour Party he was referring to. "With the aid of the Labour Party" and of Deputy Desmond—that is not in it: that is my interpolation—

"—I may advocate in the new Dáil a reduction of the taxes which so adversely affect your business and consumers generally."

Is there one of them going to stand up here now on this occasion and advocate a reduction of the taxes on those specific items?

Why the devil did you put them on?

Will the Deputy stand up and say here: "I think they should be taken off"? He will not.

They will be taken off.

Now the cat is out.

Will the Minister for Finance endorse that expectation of Deputy Dunne's ?

But not when you say so—that is the difference.

When Deputy Seán Dunne says so?

Perhaps Deputy Dunne will tell us. Deputy Dunne said in the course of his election campaign: "They will be taken off immediately." In fact, he said they would get an assurance from the Government before they joined it that those taxes were coming off. Is that not so?

That is what you say.

That is what the reports in the newspapers said.

That is what you say the reports say.

Is the Deputy repudiating the accuracy of the Press report?

I would have to examine the Press report.

I would advise the Deputy to examine it very carefully and to let us know whether he repudiates it or not.

In view of what has been proved about you here to-day I would need to examine it.

This is what has been proved—it is in the Meath Chronicle of the 14th May, where the Deputy is reported as speaking in the Market Square at Navan. Is not that specific enough? He will find the words I quoted in that report. If he was inaccurately reported, if those are not the words he used, there is a duty on him to go back to the Market Square in Navan and tell the people who were listening to him that he did not mean that and gave no such promise.

Would the Deputy go back to the Market Square in Ballina and tell the people about the biscuit factory?

I did so. May I again say a word to the Deputy on that? The Deputy implied that I did something harmful to Ballina in trying to get a factory there. I did my best, but there were circumstances which defeated that effort. They were fully explained by the solicitor to the company—who was, I think, the Fine Gael election agent in that constituency—and they were published in the local Press.

But you did not go back to the Market Square.

That has nothing to do with the debate.

I told the Deputy before and I tell him again that when I left office on the 2nd June that project was very much alive. There is one thing now that can kill it again and that is the Deputy making it a matter of political controversy. If the Deputy is interested in having that factory established, he will shut up on that subject. If he wishes to find out whether that is true or not, he can do so by having a word with the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

Deputy Lemass, on the amendment.

The purpose of the amendment is to give Deputies an opportunity of fulfilling their election promises to reduce the taxes on tobacco and cigarettes. That is why it is here. When Deputies vote on this amendment they will be voting to fulfil those pledges or voting to repudiate them. There can be no question whatever but that a specific undertaking was given by every one of them that those taxes would be reduced and reduced immediately. That is what the public understood when they voted for them. Were the public so completely wrong as Deputies now suggest? I do not believe that it is possible to get 75 or 76 Deputies in this House of different Parties all of whom are prepared cynically to repudiate their election pledges at the first opportunity they have of giving effect to them in the way suggested here yesterday. Surely there is one honest man amongst them who will take this opportunity of voting to do the things he undertook to his electors he would do.

The only honest man in Irish politics, according to the Irish Times, is sitting behind you.

And Dr. Browne.

Deputy Briscoe on the amendment.

I should like to ask the Minister for Finance if it is not a fact that when the Budget was introduced— from which Budget this Finance Bill is a natural consequence—they did not then vote against that Budget because of the very objections they had to it as stated by them during the election campaign? Will the Minister for Finance now tell us the reasons which prompted Fine Gael and the Labour Party to vote against the Budget? If my recollection is correct, during the discussion on the Budget all the arguments were put forward which were subsequently used in the election campaign. If it is not fair for us to say that the public were misled by the statements made by the candidates who now form the coalition groups and that the public were not entitled to imply from all the leaflets and speeches that Fine Gael, Labour, and so forth were against our Budget because of these particular taxes, would they now say what reasons prompted them—all of them—to vote against the Budget and now to change round and vote for the Finance Bill that enforces all the items of the Budget?

The Minister for Finance says that you cannot have it both ways. If anybody wants to have it both ways, I think it is the Minister for Finance. He wants to suggest that he was correct when he opposed the Budget and voted against it, and he wants to suggest that he is correct now in voting for the Budget proposals by opposing these amendments.

Would the Deputy mind quoting the appropriate Dáil Debate in which I so voted, as he suggested?

I asked if it is not a fact that the Minister did not vote against the Budget.

The Deputy did not. He asked why I voted against the Budget.

Is the Minister saying he was in favour of the Budget?

There was no vote on the Budget. The Deputy should try to be more accurate in his statements.

I asked a question: I did not make a statement. My recollection is that Fine Gael in particular and also the Labour Party were opposed to the Budget and they were opposed to the Budget on the grounds that it contains taxation levels which they said were too high. It contains excise duties on beer, spirits and tobacco which they said were too high. Either they were correct when they had that view then or they are correct now in their view that the levels of taxation are not too high.

Throughout this discussion, Deputy Lemass has sought to make it clear that when Fianna Fáil introduced the Budget they introduced it with all these items which they considered necessary to meet the expenditure. The opposition to it was that they were not necessary. Now, we have those who opposed the view of Fianna Fáil, when Fianna Fáil were in Government, arguing in favour of the maintenance of the Budget as introduced and of its consequential taxes and excise levies. By taking the same steps to-day as they took yesterday and voting against these amendments, they will only be confirming to the public that there was no other course open to Fianna Fáil than the course which they took in the Budget which they introduced immediately before the election.

The purpose of having Fine Gael and Labour vote on these amendments is to have on record the fact that what they said before the election and throughout the course of the election campaign was nothing but nonsense, if it was not a deliberate attempt to mislead the public into believing that what they advocated could be accomplished. I cannot speak with any certain knowledge of the position outside Dublin City or outside the confines of my constituency but I believe that very many of the people who voted for Fine Gael and Labour in my constituency did so in the belief that they would get these reliefs—reliefs to the extent that these amendments try to bring about.

The leaflet that Fine Gael published with the pictures of the pint of stout, the lb. of tea, and so forth, and the two prices—the pre-1952 price and the price ruling at present—was for no purpose other than to make people believe that, by taking off these taxes and excise duties, these commodities would be brought back again to the 1951 price level.

Did you hear anything about butter?

2/10 a lb.

Order! Order!

The price that was implied by way of a picturesque promise was 2/10 a lb.—not 5d. off 4/2. However, the Coalition Government will probably have to think about butter again at a later date. I do not think it is in order for me to discuss butter now or to discuss the question of relief in respect of the price of butter.

It is not convenient.

The Chair would not allow it.

If the Chair allows me, I will say this—

—on tobacco.

I hope that Deputy Davin will recognise that the Chair is ruling me away from discussing butter. I am not running away from it.

The Deputy must discuss the amendment which is before the House.

On a point of order. Deputy Briscoe was going down through the list of taxable commodities and he deliberately omitted butter.

It was not taxed.

I did not know until this moment that butter was taxed.

I understand you.

He thinks anything given to the farmers is a tax.

This amendment concerns tobacco.

It is a smoke-screen.

Deputy Davin wants me to come back to butter. I am willing——

Deputy Davin was promoted for interrupting.

The Deputy should not be so easily led.

I am not.

Deputy Davin got a lb. of butter to stick in his coat.

We shall be talking about butter when Supplementary Estimates are introduced here for the purpose of enabling the Exchequer to meet the cost of subsidising it. However, that is another day's case.

The Minister for Finance probably in the drafting of his election literature and Fine Gael election literature kept an eye on future interpretation. That is why he can get up here and say that he did not promise to reduce taxes. He promised to reduce taxation.

It is the other way around.

I try to take as intelligent an interpretation as possible of all the things said by Deputies and Ministers in this House. Nevertheless, I can still get things the other way round—just like the public. The public thought it was meant to be the other way round.

The shortest way home.

The voters thought that by voting for those who issued these leaflets and made these speeches they would get something cheaper— and now it is the other way round. They will remain as they were.

Perhaps the Minister will tell us what I asked him in the beginning, that is, what was the cause of their opposition to our Budget? The Budget of 1952 was similar to the Budget of 1954 except for certain remissions which appeared in the 1954 Budget. Does the Minister say that he did not vote against the 1952 Budget, when he tries to beat me to the accuracy——

To the truth.

——of what transpired here in the last Dáil?

The Deputy is not too accurate.

Deputy O'Donovan should explain that lecture he gave at the university. If anybody was ever lacking in accuracy——

The audience on that occasion did not give the Deputy a very friendly reception.

A cheap observation.

Conduct yourself.

I did not hear what the Deputy said. All I know is that the Deputy was not very accurate.

He was more accurate than the Deputy was.

Deputy Briscoe must be allowed to speak without interruption.

Deputy O'Donovan said that he and the Government of which he would be a member would reduce taxation and the cost of living and meet their cost of living reduction costs by way of subsidy through reducing the tax on beer——

So they will.

——and spirits so that the extra consumption would produce the money needed to meet the subsidy requirements. If there is anything as inaccurate as that I should like to hear it. That was Deputy O'Donovan's definite statement and promise.

No, it was not.

If I am being unfair to the Deputy perhaps he might inform the House what he said.

The audience gave the Deputy his answer when he put that construction on what I said.

We are discussing the duty on tobacco.

That also was an item in the discussion during the election. I certainly say that Deputy O'Donovan did not refer to tobacco and cigarettes.

Then these remarks should be left out.

I should like the Deputy to get up and tell us what he means when he says I did not get a good reception from the audience.

A very poor reception.

We cannot discuss that matter.

I spoke in that assembly on many occasions and I must say that I never got such a good reception as I got that night.

Is it in order for Deputy O'Donovan to interrupt every single sentence that Deputy Briscoe utters?

It is not in order for any Deputy to interrupt.

I wanted to point out that he has done so consistently for the past quarter of an hour.

Anyway, the fact is that those people who expected to get cheaper cigarettes and cheaper tobacco immediately after the change of Government will be disappointed. The Minister may be disappointed because a lot of people may now, as a result of this disappointment, decide to give up smoking. Deputy O'Donovan may whisper into the Minister's ear——

The Parliamentary Secretary.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy O'Donovan, may whisper into the Minister's ear in view of the falling off in the consumption of tobacco and cigarettes, it might be a good idea to reduce the taxation so that those who would give up smoking would go back on smoking and those who smoke less might smoke more. Then the people would have the benefit of the promise being met no matter what the result.

Deputy Lemass read out a number of leaflets. The unfortunate aspect of the situation is that we should have collected and kept all those leaflets. We might be able to make use of them on another occasion. We might have a search made in all the constituencies to procure some of those leaflets which may still be available. We will then be able to read them out and probably get legal opinion as to the exact meaning of the words used in them. The Minister for Finance might then be able to tell us whether the people were quite wrong in assuming anything.

If the Deputy lets me I will give him one leaflet.

When was it issued?

The Deputy knows very well.

When was it issued?

After the election.

Before this Government was elected.

But not before the members who make up the different Parties were elected. There is a big difference in making your 12 points after the election is over.

May I ask the Deputy a question?

Certainly.

If it was wrong for us to issue a 12-point programme before this Government was elected, why was it not wrong for the Deputy's Party to do exactly the same thing in 1951?

I am glad the Minister is following our footsteps.

The Minister for Finance made one very extraordinarily satisfactory admission in this House as far as we are concerned. He was talking about their leaving us £22,500,000 in the Exchequer when they left office in 1951. I pointed out that there were commitments attached to it. That was admitted and the Minister stated on this occasion that there was no money left in the Exchequer but that there were commitments. I asked him to give us a list of the commitments but we have not got them yet. We can get that list by way of parliamentary question and answer.

The Minister asked me a question which was really to put me off the line I was on. The question the Minister now asks me is whether it was wrong for the groups which make up the Government to have issued a 12-point programme before they took office as a Government and, if so, why was it not equally wrong for Fianna Fáil to have issued 17 points before they took office also after an election. I am not talking about that but I will answer it. I think it is a good thing for Parties to try and indicate what their programme will be. Particularly is that the case where the groups that make up a coalition have to indulge in a certain amount of bargaining. We had the Labour Party saying that they would not join the Fine Gael Coalition Government unless certain things were done.

I do not know what were the things discussed at the bargaining table. They are known only to those who participated in the discussion. These 12 points were not issued during the election campaign. We are a democratically elected Parliament and the people who elect a Government elect them on the basis of either performance or promises. On this occasion the issue in the election was a cost-of-living issue. It was described as a bread and butter election campaign. It concerned all matters appertaining to the well-being of the household. The cost of living was to be reduced. Taxation was to be reduced. That was how it was summed up. This is what we allude to.

Thousands and thousands of voters who had not what might be called strict Party affiliations, those who were not, if you like to call it, strict Fianna Fáil supporters or strict Fine Gael supporters, the floating vote, looked at the performance of Fianna Fáil and the promises of the other candidates. They said they would vote for the other groups and candidates because they offered them something better than the Fianna Fáil people were apparently able to give. Those people, having voted that way, and having expected the results promised, now find that none of these promises was made at all.

They will not get cheaper cigarettes. They will not get cheaper tobacco. They will jolly well go on smoking cigarettes and pay the same price for them. I say to the Minister that you cannot by legislation impose a direction that everybody must smoke so many cigarettes every day. When you advise people that they can get goods cheaper than they are being sold, then they expect to get them. The only alternative open to them, if the position of their affairs is such, is that they will have to cut down on certain items. What will they cut down on? They may cut down on cigarettes and tobacco. They may eat a little bit more butter. If they do it will cost the Exchequer more. I hope they will eat a lot more.

It was suggested that because the price was so high they were denied this very essential item of nourishment. Now that it is somewhat cheaper, I hope they will get a little extra nourishment. The Minister and his colleagues and supporters in the back benches can take the line of scoring political debating points in here, but the man who has a limited income to live on, who has to budget what he and his family will spend their money on, will now have to re-examine how his expenditure is going to take place. He is not going to get anything cheaper except, of course, butter. He will have to either drink less pints or drink more—or he might drink the same. If he does that, it will reflect itself on some other commodity.

In conclusion I want to say that I genuinely believed and still believe that the public, the floating vote people, who voted for Fine Gael and for Labour on these matters, gave the extra votes because of the fact that they believed that they were going to get some concessions, and apparently they are going to get none.

The air of unreality in this debate has, I think, only been equalled by that which Alice found long ago when she arrived in Wonderland. I could carry the parallel further and say that Deputy Lemass could be cast as one of the characters of that bit of literature. He struck me throughout the whole discussion as being a very self-confident, assertive person who had found that the basis of his self-confidence was his uneasiness, and who was bolstering up that self-confidence by whistling past the graveyard a very silly tune. The fact is, of course, that Deputy Lemass has been arranging things for many years, and he does not realise that now his power to arrange has gone. He will not arrange the business of this Government or the order in which that business will be taken. He will not decide when we will do anything. We will decide that. When we come to do those things, those promises we made we will keep, and when we come to initate the processes which will lighten the load on the people's back, take off the load that has been put there by Mr. Lemass and his colleagues, I hope we will have the support of Mr. Lemass——

Deputy Lemass.

Deputy Lemass, and that the fine words we have been listening to for the past few days will be repeated the next time sincerely.

Last night the Minister for Finance referred to a pamphlet that was issued on my behalf in the 1951 General Election, and he did not read the pamphlet. I asked him to do so, and he did not, but he went on to say that the effect of that pamphlet was that it promised to reduce the cost of living. I have no recollection that there was any definite promise, or any promise, made in the 1951 General Election in County Kildare by Fianna Fáil to reduce the cost of living or to reduce the price of any specific commodity during that election campaign. I have heard Ministers state here that they made no promises in this election, but there was an advertisement put into the newspapers in Kildare in this election, and a large pamphlet issued setting out the prices for a large number of commodities— the 1951. prices, when the inter-Party Government were put out of office, and the 1954 prices. We had tea at so much a lb., although it was not true; tea could only be bought on ration at that price, but it was put in the pamphlet. There was also sugar and butter at so much, and the prices that prevailed this year when the Fianna Fáil Government went out of office. What was the purpose of posting up that poster or putting in that advertisement with "vote Deputy Sweetman" at the bottom of it? On it also was that Fianna Fáil was a cruel Government, that they delighted, one would think—that they took a fiendish delight—in causing hardship to the people. What was the purpose, or what were the ordinary people in the constituency of Kildare to think but that when Deputy Sweetman referred to the prices that existed when the inter-Party was last in and the prices that existed when they went out of office, it was their intention to reduce the prices of these commodities. Cigarettes and tobacco were mentioned in it at the prices that prevailed in 1951 to which they were reduced by the previous inter-Party Government.

I remember, in 1948, when the Minister for Finance was on the platform asking for the votes of the people of Kildare and saying that Fianna Fáil put a cruel tax on cigarettes, brandishing a packet of cigarettes from the platform outside every chapel gate in the county and saying that Fianna Fáil put on that cruel tax. If there was a cruel tax put on, the inter-Party Government decided that they would take them off immediately they got into office in 1948.

As well as I can recollect, the tax that was put on in 1952 was a much more severe tax, and there was a very much greater hardship put on the people by that increase, and that is all the more reason why it should be reduced now. We had that "facts for housewives," listing all those prices and those increases, and I believe that the people in the county who supported Fine Gael gave them support more than they would have got in the ordinary course of events in the belief that Fine Gael was going to make life easier for them in that election. Deputy Sweetman, for the first time, headed the poll.

But I did not. You ought to be accurate about that, at any rate.

You got the quota, at any rate, this time.

And the Deputy did not.

And it was as a result of these promises that he achieved that position.

The Deputy did not.

He spoke last night about the anger of the people over the campaign that Fianna Fáil carried out in 1951. I believe that the people will be much more angry now when they realise that these posters were only issued for the sake of fooling and humbugging them.

Beside the Minister for Finance we had in that campaign the Tánaiste, and the Tánaiste promised everything. He promised that he would reduce taxation to reduce the cost of living. He referred to the very severe charges put on cigarettes. Even when he was returning thanks for his election at the head of the poll, he said that we were going to move now from—he referred to a word which I just cannot catch— that we were moving into greater expectations from——

From Bleak House to Great Expectations.

Yes. Thanks, Deputy Morrissey, from Bleak House to Great Expectations.

And he headed the poll.

That was the trend of the Tánaiste's speech there, that subsidies were to be restored, the price of cigarettes and tobacco to be reduced, and all that. If the Minister for Finance says that he was making no promises, he suggested in his propaganda that he would reduce taxation, reduce the rates of taxation. He blamed Fianna Fáil for the high rates in the country to which he himself had contributed largely and to hold down which he had done nothing. Fianna Fáil were blamed for everything. Deputy Norton had no hesitation in promising everything and he was so lavish in his promises that I was afraid the people would doubt him, but they did not—they took him at his word. I noticed, however, that at the end of all the speeches at the Fine Gael meetings at which Fianna Fáil were attacked for their policy of austerity, the speakers asked for No 2 votes for Deputy Norton, which I take to be an indication that Fine Gael must have some responsibility for the promises made by their colleague who is now Tánaiste in this Government.

There are very many people at present who are sadly disappointed and who very much regret the way they allowed themselves to be deceived by the Parties who now form the Government. We heard a lot of moaning here for a couple of years by the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture about the poor old age pensioner's smoke and we were told that the old age pensioner could not have his smoke, due to the cruelty of Fianna Fáil. That was echoed by many other Deputies on the opposite side. We are now told that that situation cannot be put right immediately, but I can assure the Government that the people of the country thought it would be done as quickly as it was done in 1948, when the inter-Party Government reduced the price of drink, tobacco and other commodities even before the victory celebrations were over.

They were down in West Cork— Deputy Costello, Deputy Flanagan and others—saying that we now have the "Johnny Costello pint." Naturally, the people thought all the reductions that were promised in the last election would be brought into force just as quickly this time, but Deputy A. Barry now stands up and tells the House that all these things will be done when the Government think it right to do them and not when Deputy Lemass thinks it right to do them. We do not know whether that will be within the next five years, but it is not going to happen during the present financial year, we are told.

I do not think anybody doubts that we were heading back to that position in this Budget we are discussing, in which we started off by increasing income-tax allowances and reducing the price of bread, a reduction which costs practically the same as this reduction in the price of butter about which they talked so much. One halfpenny off the price of the loaf amounts to practically the same thing as 5d. per lb. off the price of butter, and the people who will benefit most by that reduction in the price of butter are the hotel and restaurant people. The inter-Party Government know very well what happened when they tried to redeem their promises in 1948 and when they reduced all these things immediately. They know that they put themselves in debt and they know well that the Fianna Fáil Government which followed them had to pay that debt. They know very well all the things for which they did not make provision. They did not make provision for paying the civil servants the increase under the arbitration award and made no provision for the subsidy to C.I.E. and they were using American dollars at the time.

What has this to do with the tax on tobacco?

I think it has just as much to do with it as the remarks of previous speakers.

The fact that someone else was out of order does not mean that other Deputies can be out of order.

We will try to keep as near to it as we can and I think I am entitled to reply when a new Deputy stands up here and tells us: "We will reduce the price of these things in our own good time." We have no doubt in the world that we would have been able to do it in our own good time, but these people went before the people and deceived them by leading them to believe that it would be done as quickly as it was done in 1948. I am merely stating what happened after these reductions in 1948 in order to point out why Fianna Fáil had to bring in that severe Budget. It was due simply to the debt left by the inter-Party Government, and of course the inter-Party Government learned a lesson which they do not want to repeat in 1954. They know very well that they could not do all this without sinking the country deeper into debt, with the result that we get 5d. off the price of butter, that being all we are to get this year.

I do not hear anybody weeping about the old age pensioner's smoke on that side now. The Deputies there seem to have forgotten all about him and his smoke, and to have forgotten all the crying Deputy Flanagan, who is now Parliamentary Secretary, carried on for a couple of hours one day. They have completely forgotten about these poor people for whom they had all the pity—the poor old age pensioners who could not get a smoke because the price was too high. I say that this Government has deceived the country at large by their promises to reduce taxation. As I say, there is no doubt that the people expected these reductions to come into force just as quickly as they came into force in 1948. That is what the people expected, but they are now sadly disappointed.

There are two things noticeable about the attitude of the Government Parties in this debate on the tobacco duty and in fact in the entire debate. One is that they are particularly anxious to deny that they committed themselves in any way to the public during the election campaign to a reduction in prices and a reduction in the taxation on any commodity. The other is their perturbation about our using our right in the House to expose their attitude when they got their first opportunity to make good some of the many promises they made. Every Deputy from the Government side who spoke was at great pains to explain how they made no promises of any kind. That may sound all right here, but there are thousands of people throughout the country waiting and watching to see what the attitude of the Government is going to be on this occasion.

I listened to some of the election speeches in reference to the tax on tobacco and cigarettes, and not merely did they promise to reduce these things but they gave the very striking illustration to their hearers of a village or town with a row of shops on one side selling commodities at a cheap price and a row of shops on the other side selling these commodities at a higher price. They asked them which shops they would turn to to buy their goods and said that that was exactly what they were being asked to decide on 18th May. You have been asked to go out and vote on the one hand for cheap prices, for a lower cost of living and for lower taxation or on the other hand to come out and support high prices. The same people come along and tell you now that they made no promises whatever.

As regards what the Deputy said, that these reductions would be made at some time or other, we all remember the slogan at the bottom of the advertisements: "We did it in 1948; we will do it again." Now is the time to do it but the Government have no mind to do it. They fooled the people and they are annoyed because we have exposed their tactics in this instance.

Supposing the Deputies opposite made the speeches in the election campaign which they are making here in these last two days, they would be sitting over here now. Supposing Deputy Dunne went up to Navan and made the speech he made last night in this House instead of the speech he actually made in Navan, what would be the result? They are speaking with two voices and they are annoyed simply because we are exposing the fact. They have already failed to indicate to the people why they are not carrying out their promises.

If anyone has any doubt as to what the public thought, just ask a tobacco traveller or a representative of the tobacco or cigarette companies who will tell you that when they went around to the shopkeepers prior to the Dáil being assembled, they could hardly pick up a single order from Cork to Donegal because, before people would lay in stocks, they were waiting to see what the adjustment in prices would be. Yet you have the Government coming in and saying that the people did not expect it and that there were no promises. But people voted because of those promises. That small margin of a floating vote went to them because those voters believed an effort would be made to carry out some of the blitz of promises that were made. It is not merely our right but our duty to expose on every occasion in this House the failure of the Government Party to give effect to the many promises they made. The people now know the position in regard to the tax on tobacco and cigarettes, but they have been waiting; they actually refused to lay in stocks. I refused myself to buy in stocks of tobacco. No shopkeeper who was listening to the promises that were propagated up and down the country would do so. However, they know now how they stand, and, what is more, they will know how they stand on the next occasion when it presents itself, and they will give their decision in no unmistakable manner.

The Minister for Finance likened our attitude last night to the story of the sour grapes. I think that it was particularly inapt as applied to this side of the House, but one is tempted to use it in relation to the speeches which have been made for the past week on these amendments. Not many on the Fine Gael Benches have spoken. Labour has been the chief defender of the Minister. However, all of the speeches lead one to the belief that the Minister for Finance has succeeded in convincing those Labour spokesmen, and the few Fine Gael people who have spoken, that the grapes which were represented during the election campaign as being particularly sweet—reduced prices for cigarettes, for tobacco, for the essential food items, etc—are, in fact—now that these Deputies are on the Government side of the House—very sour, indeed, and not worth hankering after, and that the Fianna Fáil people are trying to force something upon the people which they would not relish if they were given it. Therefore, the Minister for Finance has decided that the people are not to have this year the things which he told them a month ago would be very good for them and that he would regulate the doses if they would only give him the right to do it.

As Deputy Brennan said, whether one goes to newspaper advertisements, to pamphlets or to the chalking on the dead walls and on the roadways, there cannot be any doubt in the mind of anybody who has observed in the most casual way what the promises were. We have been held up on this side for having on one famous occasion referred to the Oxford Dictionary. Now the Labour Party members, Deputy Desmond particularly, were very punctilious this afternoon, in wanting Deputy Lemass to quote not alone the document but to produce Deputy Desmond's own signature on it and, in fact, to quote the paragraph chapter and verse. We know, and everybody who took part in the election knows, that not alone were these promises made on a public platform but they were made with greater vehemence on the floors of the households which were visited by the canvassers of the various speakers. If the Minister for Finance would have the grace to do what the Fianna Fáil Party did when they came along in 1951—and he has chided us with not having fulfilled our undertaking with regard to the subsidies—perhaps this cynical action of all the Coalition groups might be less objectionable—I will not say it would be acceptable— that is, to say that the financial position does not warrant what Fianna Fáil suggests they should do.

One of the Fine Gael speakers in a commendably short speech, without referring specifically to the subject matter of this motion, cigarettes or tobacco, said that this Government is making a genuine effort to reduce the burden of the people. We have not withheld the due amount of credit which that action has earned but I would like to say to Deputy Barry that the lightening of the burden amounts to £1,250,000. When one considers all the "gáisc", all the boasting and the ballyhoo that took place for about two months before the election and all the people who were deceived to oring about that concession of £1,250,000, it is awfully like using a sledge-hammer to kill the proverbial fly. The Fianna Fáil Party went out without any "gáisc" boasting or ballyhoo and lightened the burden by £900,000 in the matter of bread and lightened it a further £900,000 in relation to other taxes.

We did not shout from the housetops about that, and I think our attitude on this side of the House is readily understandable by those who have been deceived. We know that the convinced Fine Gael supporter was not deceived. We know equally well that no wool was pulled over the eyes of the convinced Fianna Fáil supporter. That section of the electorate, however, to which Deputy Briscoe referred was deceived. We think it is a perfectly justifiable attitude to point out to those people the scurvy trick— I do not think any other description can be applied to it—that has been played upon them. Even the civil servants, and I have met many of them since the change of Government, who had calculated what they would receive from the £1,000,000 back money will be disappointed. I admit this is not strictly relevant, but I do not think I am straying much further than the average speaker. The civil servants had calculated to the last penny what they would get so that they could have a holiday this year. But they have been deceived.

If the Minister for Finance would admit frankly and freely, as Fianna Fáil did in 1951, that the position is such that he cannot concede these tax reliefs, that attitude would be much less objectionable. Putting the bold, cynical face on it in relation to the statements that were made, statements about which there is no doubt in the public mind, leaves Fianna Fáil no choice but to put these matters to a test so that the public will know exactly who has honoured his word.

The demonstration by the Labour Party member who stormed out of the House because his name was associated with a promise to reduce taxation will have its effect on the country. The attitude of the Minister for Finance and his fellow-travellers now is that the reason they published this document showing the price of cigarettes in 1954 and the price of cigarettes in 1951 was to give warning to the people that that would be the price of cigarettes under a new Coalition. To-day and yesterday they claimed here by their attitude that the reason they published the pint as costing 10d. in 1951 and 1/2 in 1954 was to tell the people that they would continue to pay 1/2 for it.

A nice report on the Deputy's record would be a better way of putting it.

When Deputy Briscoe was speaking to-day and when he accused the Minister for Finance of having voted against the tax on tobacco, the Minister for Finance indignantly denied that he voted against the tax on tobacco in the Budget of this year. The fact is that the increase in the tax on tobacco was put on in the 1952 Budget.

Exactly, and that is why I corrected Deputy Briscoe.

That is the narrow legalistic argument. The Minister did not vote against the tax on tobacco in this year's Budget and he wants the people to believe that he was actually in favour this year of the existing level of taxation on tobacco. But the fact is that there was no increase in the tax on tobacco and nothing in the Budget this year about tobacco. It was in 1952 the tax was increased and it was in that year that the present Minister and his colleagues, then in opposition, voted against it.

The Minister for Finance should also remember that the reason that Deputy Costello, now Taoiseach, gave for not voting against the income-tax proposals was because they would be null and void after the election and would have to be reintroduced. It is interesting in view of the fact that there was no promise about a reduction in income-tax to look at column 601 of the Official Report of 21st April last, the day the Budget was introduced. Deputy Costello said:—

"I gather that by reason of the special provision in the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1927, this Resolution will go by the board on the dissolution and accordingly it will be necessary to give statutory effect to it by the Dáil in the future and by whatever Government may introduce it."

What did the Minister say then?

The Minister said:—

"Not the one relating to income-tax.

Mr. Costello: I would like to be assured on that."

The Parliamentary Secretary spoke too quickly. He is too fond of interrupting instead of talking. He has got plenty of opportunities of speaking since he came into the House but his policy is to interrupt every sentence uttered by anybody on this side of the House. He interrupted a little bit too fast just now because Deputy Costello went on to say that he would like to be assured of that. The Parliamentary Secretary is invited to get up and speak, and not to be dribbling at every sentence anybody says here.

I want to know what the Minister said on that occasion.

Even if the Parliamentary Secretary is not accustomed to parliamentary procedure, he should, at least, have a little manners.

The Deputy sets a good example. "Dribbling" is parliamentary, I suppose.

That is exactly what he is doing, and when there is an illmannered child around, one has to spank him.