It is usually the right of the Deputy who reports progress to have the last word, but on this occasion it was denied to me by Deputy Sweetman, when he remarked that what I was saying about small savings was in conflict with what the Minister for Finance said yesterday. I should like to remind him of what is contained in the Minister's statement.

I was talking about the statement in the booklet Economic Statistics.

Read the little book.

Read the little green book. That is the accurate one, not the one with the gloss on it.

Page 4 of the Minister's statement reads:

It was only to be expected that the receipts from Prize Bonds would not continue at the high level of the first year after their introduction. Nevertheless, the intake from the last three half-yearly issues has been most satisfactory. The total net receipts last year were £2¼ million. The success of the Bonds naturally affected to some extent the support given to the traditional forms of small saving but, in spite of this, the net receipts from Savings Certificates and the Savings Banks at £2.7 million showed an increase of £2 million over 1957-58. Taken together Prize Bonds, Savings Certificates and the Savings Banks brought in £5 million of new savings in 1958-59.

Look at page 18 of the little green book, at the top of column 9.

There was added to that saving, a figure of personal expenditure of £23 million. The Deputy will not deny that.

In real terms.

I shall again refer the Deputy——

I refer the Minister to table 8 where it shows our gross national product in real terms.

The Deputy was not here when I was outlining the advances that took place during 1958 as reflected in the statistics available to us, in industrial production, the decrease in the unemployment register and the success of the National Loan, with the assistance of the positive action of the Government as a result of the programme outlined in the White Paper. Right through the year, there was an air of ever-increasing confidence. That confidence was reflected in a stimulation of business activity generally and it was remarked by outside agencies.

During the course of my remarks on the Vote on Account, I referred to the report of 1958 on Ireland by O.E.E.C.: "The positive progress and expansion were possibly more markedly reflected in the fact that there was an increase in external capital investment from £1.1 million in 1957 to £17.7 million in 1958." Recently, I was glad to remark further observations as to progress made by agencies outside our own country. It is contained in a statement in a monthly journal called Euromarket which is designed to reach and to advise business executives all over Europe and to give an objective picture of conditions in different countries.

Is the journal in the Library?

I am not sure.

Will the Minister table it if he is going to quote from it?

I have not got it with me but I shall give it to the Librarian.

That is all right, as long as I can look at it before next week.

The Deputy might be able to take some credit for what I am about to read.

I want to make sure that the gloss is the right gloss.

This is the statement:

"These major industrial developments in Cork Harbour come at a time when the Irish economy is on the verge of a period of expansion. During the past three years dangerous inflationary tendencies have been effectively curbed——"

Deputy Sweetman can take his due share of credit for that.

The Minister did not hear Deputy Brennan today.

The statement continues:

"——and the past year has seen a major growth of foreign investment in the country——"

as instanced by this remarkable increase in 1958 over 1957

"——especially investment by industrialists from the Common Market countries. In addition 1958 saw a recovery in industrial production——"

which I pointed to already

"——(at a time that output in many other countries was static or declining), a reduction in emigration and a recovery of confidence, which has been encouraged by the Government's five-year programme for economic expansion——"

These are the words exactly.

At this stage may I ask the Minister a question? In view of that, how does he explain the fact that there are fewer people in insurable employment in 1958 than in 1955 and 1956 and that the rate of unemployment was higher in 1958 than in 1955 or 1956?

The Deputy may not know that all over the world the same thing is taking place, that fewer people are staying to work on the land. That is a situation not peculiar to Ireland. Agricultural employment has declined steadily over a period.

That is not the explanation here.

I did not interrupt the Deputy. I heard him making a long speech yesterday and he made many assertions with which I did not agree. There is an increase in industrial employment of 2,000 over the figure for 1957-58.

I wish to put the Minister right. The statistics show that 4,000 of the 10,000 are in agriculture, and the other 6,000 are elsewhere. Those are your own statistics.

The Minister should read the green book over the week-end.

I have read it already.

The Minister must to be allowed to make his statement.

We are putting him on the right track.

Deputies opposite can cast about, making statements, and nobody dare interfere with them or interrupt them.

I am trying to help the Minister.

I am sorry the Deputy was not here a while ago when I was trying to give an indication of some of his assertions yesterday, but he can read them in the Official Report.

Thank goodness I was not here because I could not have contained myself. However, I shall have something to say next week.

The Deputy will have plenty of time. It is a pity he was not here because the side let him down badly. We had to wait almost five minutes for a speaker.

The Minister should be allowed to continue.

The Minister is being provocative.

It is not so easy to provoke Deputy O'Sullivan. He will have an opportunity of saying what he has to say.

We should not be upbraided for not interrupting.

The whole trouble is that the Minister was not ready to make a speech and he was forced to do so before he was prepared.

I am quite ready.

I am delighted to hear that. The Minister made two big mistakes and I shall have fun next week at his expense.

Added to all the improvements to which I have already referred there was, as everybody knows, a big increase in bank advances last year, again reflecting an air of confidence not only within the country but also outside the country. All this indicates very clearly a steady improvement in our economic position, an improvement which has been noted by other countries. The Budget introduced yesterday, while it has not been put forward as a panacea for all our ills, can definitely be claimed to be a contribution to this positive programme of expansion which has generated such confidence in the country's future.

This Budget comes to the assistance of the weaker sections of the community. We would like to come to their assistance to a greater extent but, in so far as the money was available, assistance was given to those weaker sections and at the same time relief was given in a direction where it was badly needed. In the words of Deputy Sweetman, the Budget gives that shot in the arm to the economy which is so essential. It would have been possible, of course, to put a better face on things by presenting a not-so-honest Budget, a Budget that would perhaps provide certain capital moneys in order to put a better face on the unemployment figures, for instance, but again the Government resisted that temptation. The Government have decided that the cure for unemployment is a long term one and that sops, while they may provide an immediate remedy, tend only to aggravate the position in the long run.

If the Minister wanted to present an election Budget, as has been suggested, it could quite easily have been done. Instead the Budget that has been presented is designed to produce that steady improvement which alone can be of lasting benefit to the community. It has been acclaimed by impartial people, so far as we can judge, as a good, businesslike Budget, as a Budget which will give the necessary stimulus to private investment and to production and, as a result, give the necessary stimulus to the means of increasing employment. I believe it has been acclaimed and accepted in that form throughout the country and that, taken with the White Paper and taken with the positive programme the Government has, it will give the people even further confidence than they had during the year 1958.

The Minister for Education mentioned that we had let this side down because we did not appear anxious to speak on this Budget. I was ready to speak but I did not stand up because the Minister for Finance was not in the House. I do not think it is the business of this side of the House to keep a House for the Government Party and I had been waiting a long time for the Minister for Finance. As a matter of fact Deputy Brennan had held the fort for a very long time. The Minister was evidently having a very good lunch.

I would not grudge him that after yesterday. He had a tiring day trying to make good answers out of bad material.

Is it Deputy Sweetman or Deputy Lynch who is making the speech?

I am giving Deputy Lynch a chance of recovering himself. He had not got his notes absolutely ready.

Having heard the Minister yesterday I got a copy of his speech because I wanted to make sure, in the light of what we are constantly saying from all sides of the House, that agriculture is the most important part of our economy. It is our most important industry yet 6½ lines are devoted to agriculture in the Budget. They appear on page 7 and are well worth noting:

"The drop in agricultural production last year, which caused the net fall in national output, was due entirely to the bad harvest. With reasonable harvesting conditions this year, agricultural production should more than regain the lost ground, especially in view of the gratifying increase in breeding stock and young cattle recorded at the livestock census in January last."

That, coming from the Minister for Finance, almost makes me bleed to death when I think of the smell of stinking calves all over the country. Now we are told it is good to have cattle. The people who had T.B. tested herds, when neither the Minister nor his colleagues knew what a T.B. tested beast was, had to sell them and were almost compelled to throw them away. Then we are told that Fianna Fáil policies were right—Ministers for grass, going around the country, making fun of all the stockholders and all the people with livestock or connected with that industry. The people who were going around the country making fun had nothing to lose but the people who were protesting had something to lose and they lost it.

The decline in the agricultural industry last year was not altogether due to the bad harvest. A lot of farmers got out of pigs because the Minister's colleagues cut the price of Grade "A" pigs—an action which he was told here was the most injurious thing he could do to our economy. I deplore the fact that, in an Irish Budget, the Minister for Finance had nothing to say about agriculture except those few lines. He had nothing to say about our biggest productive industry. Where will all this wonderful economic production and economic expansion come from if not from agriculture?

The Irish farmer is not buying any newspaper now—not even the IrishPress— which tells him to grow more wheat. The Government are letting this slide along. Have the Minister and his colleagues any idea of what is happening in the country? They had a problem last year with wheat because of bad weather. They had a problem the year before with wheat because there was a surplus. They had never read their Bibles, not one of them, because if they had they would have read in Genesis that when a Pharaoh had a surplus of wheat it was stored in the years of plenty so that when the years of scarcity and famine came there was corn in Egypt.

There were no millers then.

Exactly.

Only Pharisees quote the Bible.

It cost some hundreds of thousands of pounds to give away our wheat, to give a lot of it to English feeders. The Minister's colleague made sure that English feeders would get wheat at a lower price than any foodstuff in the whole world— and they would not give it to their own farmers to feed it here. If the Minister will think back—he comes from farming stock—he will realise that if they had given it to their own farmers there would not be a decline in pig production. Are these good policies? Are these tactics anything to be proud of?

Our farmers are now switching over to barley. The Minister has made many forecasts. It reminds one of what happens on meeting the tipsters going to a race meeting. He is only chancing his arm. I shall not chance my arm. I shall make a forecast here and stand over it when the time comes. It is that if the Minister has a good harvest he will have an enormous surplus of barley on his hands. The Irish farmer has got out of wheat-growing. He has got no encouragement from this great Fianna Fáil Party who have always said "Wheat", "Wheat", "Wheat"; "Grow More Wheat"; "Wheat is the whole business." They are not telling the people to grow it now.

Fianna Fáil blamed the inter-Party Government for cutting the price of wheat but they themselves cut the throats of the wheat-growers. Yesterday, Fianna Fáil Deputies clapped and cheered the Minister but none of them was here this morning. The Minister for Education said we were not anxious to speak on the Budget. I do not see any Fianna Fáil Deputies coming in to speak on the Budget. I took a note of this.

It speaks for itself, does it not?

At 10.50 a.m. there was one back-bencher on the Fianna Fáil benches. If the Budget were any good, some Fianna Fáil Deputies would come in to join in the debate. There were only one back-bencher and two Ministers over there this morning, until after 11 o'clock.

A good proportion.

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

The best way I can give my opinion on the Budget and the Budget Statement is by skimming through it. At page 3, the Minister states:—

"In many areas housing needs appear now to be almost fully met. Building work on hands was held up by the wet weather which prevailed during the summer and autumn."

It is a good thing to be able to speak for one's constituency. Building work in Waterford was held up by the Minister for Local Government and his Department. There is still a very big demand for houses in Waterford, not just for very low-priced houses. There are 16 houses almost completed, which represent the last vestige of building there, and the local authority are inundated with applications for those 16 houses at 27/6d. a week each. We submitted a scheme to the Minister's colleague in October and are still awaiting sanction. We have the site and everything ready. The majority of the building workers have gone to England. The few left and who are at present engaged in completing the few houses still in course of construction in Waterford will have to go if this scheme is not commenced. The statement in the Budget is a poor response to that need. It tries to infer that there are no housing needs in the country when, in fact, there are. It tries to infer that where houses are needed the Government are only willing and anxious to provide the necessary sanction and the money.

At page 7 of the Financial Statement the Minister says:

Though the unemployment figures for recent weeks are running about 5,000 less than a year ago, they are still much too high.

I shall give the Minister great credit for that admission. He is the first member of Fianna Fáil I have heard saying that for a long time. They just gloss over the unemployment problem and say that the figures are down, that everything is fine. They know that there are 50,000 fewer workers in the country and 50,000 fewer pay packets than there were a few short years ago. Deputy Briscoe is frowning. That figure is correct.

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

The Minister went on to say:

Indeed, in many countries the situation worsened during the past year in contrast to the improvement achieved here simultaneously with a fall in emigration."

There is bound to be a fall in emigration because we could not produce young men and women at the rate at which they were leaving the country for the past couple of years. They have nearly all gone now. As I mentioned before a Deputy called for a House, there were 50,000 more pay packets being spent in this country only a few years ago than there are now. Consider the business represented by those pay packets. There is a considerable fall in the consumption of all classes of consumer goods. I gathered from speeches I have heard in this House that the biggest loss from emigration occurred in the West of Ireland, but I consider that a good criterion as to a decline in population in various areas is the decline in the consumption of flour in those areas. I am informed that there is a considerable drop in the consumption of flour in rural areas in the East of the country.

The Minister for Education was discussing who was responsible for Whitegate and who was not. I do not give two rows of pins as to who was responsible for Whitegate or anything else. The main thing is that we have these industries. I shall not join in the famous song of a Fianna Fáil Minister when he attacked colleagues of mine here for promoting State industries. He called these industries white elephants. It is a great thing for us to have these industries. The Minister says that the economy has gained ground generally. That is the reaction of little Jack Horner, who put in his thumb and pulled out a plum and said "What a good boy am I". By whose actions was that achieved? What has the Minister done to substantiate that claim since he came into office or since he read his Budget speech here two years ago? The Minister has done nothing. His colleagues have done nothing.

The Minister further says:

Productive home assets have been built up.

What are the productive home assets that have been built up? These are only words. I am tired of listening to this type of speech trotted out by Ministers at Chamber of Commerce dinners and the like all over the country. They mean nothing. He says again on Page 10:

External reserves have benefited from a capital inflow which indicates external confidence in our economy. Current revenue and expenditure have been brought into balance. At the same time, we must see that we do not overspend for current purposes or waste in any other way the capital we must use productively if we wish to raise our living standards permanently.

I do not know who is responsible for this. I discovered in the Estimates that there is about £10,000,000 earmarked for arterial drainage, the equivalent of what Deputy Brennan decried as "digging holes." The Minister finishes with this remark—

More important still is the human factor—the will of our people to work for their own and the country's betterment...

Where is the work for the 20,000 unemployed? I should like to ask that question and I put it now to the Minister and to his colleague who is now on the road to Rome, the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

He is on the road home now.

The Deputy is misinformed; he is flying home.

Is he flying home? am sure that some thousands of men will be employed tomorrow when he comes home. I wonder has he got his fairy chest with his £225,000,000 in it. The figure of £225,000,000 was trotted out to us during the election. He had £225,000,000 and 100,000 jobs. I will settle for 1,000 of these jobs, for 100 of them in my constituency. I do not care if you wish to hand them out to the members of the Fianna Fáil Cumann.

The Minister goes on to say—

... the will of our people to work for their own and the country's betterment and their efficiency as organisers, producers and salesmen.

Where are the organisers and the salesmen? The Minister earmarked £250,000 for a great drive for increased markets for our goods two years ago. What have we done with the £250,000? We have had two years to send out these salesmen. In my opinion they are the kind of people who could not sell plums to birds on a frosty morning. The Minister should see to it that that money is spent and that we look for markets and send out people who know something about sales technique.

The Minister has raised the old age pensions by 2/6. That was delayed action. Having taken away the subsidies two years ago, and having driven up the cost of living for all people—and it leaned harder on these unfortunate people—they are now getting 2/6 a week of an increase which is to be delayed until the 1st August, 1959. We can only say: "Thank God for small mercies." The cinemas are getting some relief. That is wonderful. The cine variety is also benefiting, which is marvellous. We will all go dancing and we will go to the dogs.

In regard to the setting up of Bord na gCon, the Minister said that one of its functions was "to protect and foster the breeding and export of greyhounds." That occurs on page 20. In my opinion, and in the opinion of many other people, it is protecting and fostering more than greyhounds. It is protecting and fostering a good many of the friends and members of the Board. They were very coy here when they were asked for the names and addresses of the people appointed and we would not be told.

The composition of the Board does not arise on the Financial Resolution. The Deputy may get an opportunity of discussing it relevantly on the Estimate.

Thank you, Sir, I shall. Professional boxing—we go there every night of course. Income tax and surtax—that is wonderful for all the working people and the unemployed men. Stamp duty—the Minister proposes to simplify the rates of duties on policies of marine insurance. I can hear the cheers all over the country, and people saying: "That must be marvellous; no stamp duty on policies of marine insurance."

The Deputy is getting very witty.

That is very welcome.

The Deputy should get a job in a cine variety concert.

Mr. Heathcote-Amory determined that—the stamp duty on insurance policies.

In his conclusion the Minister states—

"For agriculture, the provisions made implement the White Paper proposals; in particular, large sums are allotted for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis and for increased soil fertility."

This is something that must be done and done with some dispatch and we must thank the British Minister for Agriculture and the British Government for their generosity to us in extending the time. But for the fact that they extended the time our whole eradication scheme would have been a failure because the Minister for Agriculture would not have been able to carry it out.

It is only the British Minister who could do it.

An Irish Minister could do it here in Ireland first of all by giving the good example to the Irish people and to the farmers of getting his own herd tested first and not being the last to get it done. One of the reasons the Minister for Agriculture has not been able to go around the country urging the farmers to have their herds tested was because he had not got his own herd tested.

That is not a matter for the Financial Resolution.

It is personal as usual.

It is personal?

Of course, it is.

Well, the person of the Minister for Agriculture is more important than the person of the whole agricultural community, and the person of the Minister for Agriculture is more important than the whole of the Irish cattle trade. The Minister for Education said that Deputy Sweetman described this Budget as a "shot in the arm" and he thought that was a compliment. I think you give shots in the arm only to people when they are in a very bad way. The Minister for Education said that the cure for unemployment is a long term policy. He need not have told us that at all. I remember the famous slogan: "We will do away with unemployment and call back the emigrant." That was 27 years ago and it is going on still and people are falling for it still.

It is a wonder the Minister did not mention the Common Market as one of the cures for unemployment, so much has been made of it by his colleagues. I said before, and will say again, that any time spent in travelling or talking about the Common Market is only a waste.

It has been said here about this Budget: "Our efforts were frustrated at some time, but that is not our fault." Thank God, they were frustrated, when they tried to destroy the export trade and the British market. It was also said: "During the year, there was great stimulation of business activities". I have not come across that amongst shopkeepers in Dublin or in the country.

Are the auctioneers not busy?

The chemists will be always busy with the Health Act. We will probably be busy selling people out, but that is a thing I shall not do. Those opposite sold them out of their rights and sent the "Broy Harriers" to do their miserable, dirty work.

They finished the Blue-shirts, anyway.

They were giving the cattle away for nothing.

The Deputy should pay no attention to interruptions.

The British never got them at the prices the "Broys" got.

We will have the Blueshirts next.

And the Brown-shirts.

You were proud of them.

Deputy Lynch should be allowed to make his speech on the Financial Resolution.

If I am allowed to make it, I shall do so. In the first Budget the Minister read here, he actually made a statement that he had earmarked £45,000 for Dunmore East. I nearly dropped dead when I heard that at last some money was to be spent on Dunmore East. I brought the quotation in here, as I know they have a habit of trying to get out of what they said.

I do not remember it.

Here it is, in the Budget Statement for 1957, column 944 of the Dáil Debates.

It is a year out, that is all.

He said:—

I propose to make available for the benefit of the sea and inland fisheries an additional sum of approximately £50,000. Of this sum, £45,000 will be used to erect an ice plant at Dunmore East....

I was delighted. I heard it broadcast on the radio that night. Somehow or other, as the Estimates went on——

Was that on an Estimate or was it a Budget speech?

This was a Budget speech.

The Deputy said "1958" before.

No, I said "1957". It was his first Budget speech in this Government.

I could not do any more than provide the money.

The discussion on the expenditure of the money would arise on the Estimate. I do not see how it can be discussed on the Budget.

It was in a previous Budget statement. We did not get a "bob."

That would be for another Minister.

Is it not relevant to show the sincerity of the Minister for Finance?

Yes, I allow that, but any further discussion on it would not be in order.

This £50,000 was an important sum of money and that was the reason I mentioned it. It shows how my constituency has been treated by the Minister for Finance and by other Ministers for Finance in his Government. I have been putting down a series of questions for some time, to see how much money has been spent in my constituency, and I have come to the conclusion that there must be some kind of partition there to keep the money out—as if we were not paying any taxes or doing anything.

I heard Deputy Norton and Deputy Corish mention unemployment. The Minister for Education very cleverly twisted that around and said the unemployment figures had gone down. Deputy Norton and Deputy Corish are well able to defend themselves, but what they meant was that the number of jobs had gone down considerably. That is the important thing. The Minister then said that the song which would apply to Deputy Norton was: "Hang down your head, Tom Dooley." If that applies to anyone, it would apply to the Minister's colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who promised the people he would put them back to work. He said: "Let us get cracking", "Wives, vote for Fianna Fáil and put your husbands to work." He cheated the people and blackguarded them in that way. Deputies opposite may laugh, but it is no laughing matter to the unfortunate woman looking at her husband still coming from the labour exchange, or to the whole families which have gone away to England. Deputies opposite were always good at laughing it off.

Then there was the famous statement that money was not scarce, that he had £225 millions and 100,000 jobs. I am repeating that and shall keep on repeating it. He went around the country and said that at function after function, at cumann after cumann and at public meeting after public meeting. What has he done about it? He has been two years in office. The first time I mentioned it, I was told they had only just come into office. Now he has been two years in. Those opposite were clapping this Budget yesterday. Let them go to the Shelbourne Hotel or the Gresham Hotel and they will find people who will say that this is a wonderful Budget. But let them ask the man in the street, the working man, or the man working in the fields or in the factories, or the man who is not working. Let them ask those people's wives what this Budget means to them and what benefit they will get out of it.

The Government owed a duty to the people. By the removal of the levies, they put up the cost of living substantially, including the cost of bread, butter, tea and sugar; but they have not mentioned one word about those commodities in this Budget. I expected—the ordinary people of this country expected—that the restitution the Minister would make, when he had a small bit of a surplus, would be to endeavour to reduce the price of bread or butter

We have just listened to a magnificent contribution to the Budget debate by Deputy T. Lynch. Of course, he could not resist the most personal approach. He reminded me of a story I heard yesterday about a certain individual who loved to hit below the belt, provided he could place the belt in as low a position as possible before he struck the blow.

The Deputy also spoke about our inviting all the emigrants home from England. I think his memory must be failing him because it was the first Coalition Government which published the booklet inviting all the emigrants home to the jobs they were going to create for them.

They asked the tradesmen to come back.

A magnificent pamphlet was published by the first Coalition Government inviting all our emigrants back. They were going to put them to work on the building of houses, factories, and I do not know what.

They did.

They found they had not enough houses in Dublin.

Deputy Lynch remembers all right but confuses the people who extended the invitation. A great many references were made to the number of unemployed. The Minister quite frankly said in his Budget speech that, although there was a fall in the number of unemployed, it was to be regretted that we had even the high figure of unemployed we have. It is with that attitude we should approach this question.

I should like to place on record something that I said many times. Perhaps, the Minister himself might do what I suggest or maybe he might induce some of his colleagues in the Cabinet to do it. I think the time has come to examine carefully those who are registered as unemployed. I think there should be a segregation made as between those who are employable and those who are no longer employable and that those who are no longer employable should be transferred to the Social Welfare register. Then, we would get a realistic picture of our unemployment situation. I said that before and I think that if time is given to the examination of this matter, particularly in the city of Dublin, we shall get quite a different picture and we shall be able to examine ways and means of dealing, again in a realistic way, with our unemployed.

I have often been asked to break down the figure of unemployed registering at our exchanges, the number of male adults able for work, the number of female adults and the number of juveniles male and female. I find it very difficult to get a clear picture in regard to all. I am not speaking from mere guesswork. I have close knowledge of this matter in recent years since the Government enabled the Dublin Corporation to take on men who were on outdoor assistance, on what are called public relief schemes. We have been able to find out to a certain extent the numbers and the types of persons suitable for the class of work which we engage in and which is available.

With regard to the Budget, I remember on two specific occasions, on the introduction of a Budget by Fianna Fáil Government, where we were abused and criticised because the Budgets were severe. They were called hair-shirt Budgets. Today we are discussing a Budget which is reasonable and which is admitted everywhere to be a good one and one which in every aspect brought reliefs and we are again criticised. It is suggested that it is not based on realism; that it is an election Budget.

In fact, we lost two general elections because we were truthful with regard to the situation and because in the interests of the country and the people, when we saw danger, our Minister for Finance in those days and the Government faced up to it and brought in Budgets which imposed great hardships on the community at large in order that in time to come we could look to a better situation ahead.

We have got to balance our views between these attitudes of behaviour. When the Fianna Fáil Government saw there was danger, they imposed restrictions and in a sense, heavy taxation in order to try to balance the situation. Now, what have we got? We have a good Government with a substantial backing in this House so that they can carry out their policy. They do not have to bargain with anybody else. They do not have to fear that in going on a certain line and in a certain direction, they may not be able to carry on. After two years of office, the country is in quite a different condition from what it was when they took over.

Nobody will deny that there has been re-established complete and full confidence in the Fianna Fáil Government and, as a result of that, in the welfare of the country. Nobody will deny that there is an upward trend in everything and that not only is there confidence among the people at home, but there is confidence now in this nation and in its people among people in various parts of the world. You cannot transform a country in 24 hours. It cannot be done in a year or two but it is quite obvious that there is a transformation going on. It is recognisable and as year follows year the speed at which the improvement takes place will increase in momentum.

What do Fine Gael spokesmen say? They cannot appreciate what has been done in this Budget. For a long time before the Budget was announced, there were questions in the House. There were meetings outside and there were petitions that the Government should do something for the old age pensioner. The maximum that was thought to be possible in the minds of all our opponents was that in the Budget it might be possible to force the Government to give an extra 1/- or, perhaps, 1/6d. to the old age pensioners. The fact that the Minister was able to divide the benefits in a way that allowed him to give 2/6d. to the old age pensioners just stunned our critics. They could not believe it. In addition they cannot understand how it was possible to administer the past year and to make provision for the coming one by giving additional benefits all around.

Deputy Lynch, when referring to the Minister's Budget statement, put his fingers on the pages and talked about the Minister having devoted five and a half lines—I think that is what he said —to agriculture, the country's most important industry. The Deputy did not think it worth his while to admit that it was not necessary to give more than talk to agriculture because, only yesterday, the Minister indicated in answer to a question that State aid to agriculture under various heads amounted to something between £19,000,000 and £20,000,000 per annum. These are things that are much better than words. I am not capable of speaking on behalf of agriculture but I do feel that agriculture to-day is also benefiting by good Government and by having a good Minister in charge.

I do not think that our opponents appreciate the thought behind items in the Budget and the consequences which flow from decisions when they are implemented. It may seem very niggardly and very small that the Minister has increased the allowances to charitable organisations. In order that their functions might be free of tax, their expenses could not exceed 50 per cent of the total, but that is now raised to 60 per cent. What does it mean? It does not mean very much as far as State finances are concerned but it means a great deal in employment. It means that these functions will now be held to a greater extent and, as a result, employment will be given.

The same applies to the variety of entertainments tax remissions. The bulk amounts that will be lost by revenue will not be very significant but they will result in increased employment because of the continued existence of this class trade, commerce, or whatever you like to call it. If it improves it means additional employment but, of course, this is lost sight of also. I should like to have heard criticisms, item by item, of the things that were done, the remissions in direct taxation and the benefits given to industrial development. All these things will bring benefits to the individuals who will become employed, and to the State as a whole.

I do not think that the opponents of Fianna Fáil can face this Budget. Their behaviour in this House, and their absence from the House throughout almost the whole discussion, shows how lacking in anxiety they are to get in and punch holes in the Budget itself.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present, House counted, and 20 Members being present.

On a point of order, I want to point out that there are only two Fine Gael Deputies present.

That is not a point of order.

It is the duty of the Government Party to keep the House and we shall see that you keep it. After all, it is not fair to Deputy Briscoe.

It may not be a point of order but it certainly is a fact that there are only two Fine Gael Deputies present.

You have the stalwarts behind you now.

There are no remnants of the Coalition, no small Parties.

The responsible Opposition!

Their absence is due to the fact that they have nothing to say. They are thoroughly ashamed of themselves because, no comparison can be made with the performance of this Government, after two years in office, in clearing up the mess, the second mess, bequeathed to it by the second inter-Party Government, the Coalition Government or whatever it was called. They cannot face it. That is the position. We know it and it is no harm to enable them to ring the bell for a House as often as possible, so that it can be placed on record that during the discussion on this Budget——

I would prefer that it be described as during Deputy Briscoe's discussion on the Budget.

The Deputy must know that the bell has been ringing far longer than I have been talking.

And it will ring again.

I know it will.

I do not make any apology to the Deputy for causing the bell to be rung.

It tolled for you people anyway.

At least it is nice to know that the Deputy is capable of something.

Deputies should get back to the Financial Resolution.

I shall come back to it. First of all, I said that we can estimate the arguments with which the Opposition approach is made to the Budget. They want plenty of words. They want to be able to explain things without doing things. I illustrated that before by saying that Deputy T. Lynch complained bitterly that there were not many pages in the Budget speech devoted to agriculture. He forgot to mention that there are subsidies and State aid to agriculture to the extent of between £19,000,000 and £20,000,000.

That is not in the Budget speech.

That is more than words. Deputy T. Lynch is back again. Perhaps he will now go back to the Book of Estimates to see how concerned the Government are about the welfare of agriculture?

The Minister was not concerned about that. He did not mention it in the Budget speech.

I must say I would far rather see action than words. The country heard enough of words and saw no action when the Coalitions were operating.

"Send your husbands back to work."

"Come back from England". They went to the expense of printing a beautiful brochure, as if it were something to attract tourists, to bring them back from England to work.

The Deputy was pressing for houses to be built and the inter-Party Government issued a brochure calling back tradesmen to build them. But the Deputy sent them back to England again.

The Deputy has discovered there was such a brochure. He denied it before.

He did not deny it.

Yes, he did. The Deputy talked so much utter nonsense. He talked—as if it was of great significance—about 18 houses waiting to be built in Waterford.

There are 18 houses being finished there.

I was interested in the provision of houses in my constituency in Dublin city and I did have quarrel after quarrel with the inter-Party Government for the continuance of that programme. Thank goodness, we have now reached the stage in the city of Dublin where we can see the end of our housing needs and where we are beginning to provide the necessary flat accommodation—which we shall deal with on the Local Government Vote—and we are quite happy about it. At the moment our problem in Dublin—and the Minister could find fault with us there—is that we have not been able to spend the amount of money made available to us as quickly as we might.

While deliberately failing to spend what was available to you before.

That is not true. The inter-Party Government were completely burst. They could not get the money——

Quite wrong.

——in the bank or anywhere. I know it.

By a fraudulent campaign you failed to spend the money available.

You had not a shilling credit in the bank.

You had £5 million available to you.

A promise and a bit of paper. You all know it. When we went to the bank we could not get credit for a shilling, even with the guarantee of that letter that is talked about. Do not talk about something you know nothing about. To-day the credit of the State stands high.

At Cobh, Dun Laoghaire and Shannon airport.

There is no necessity for Deputy Briscoe to answer interruptions; it leads only to disorder.

I shall not allow that Deputy to think for one moment he can say something which I am not capable of answering or showing to be wrong. That is why I listen carefully to his interruptions.

Who built the houses?

I do not mind the Deputy from Waterford so much. He and I can have a pow-wow outside.

A discussion of the housing problem will arise on the Local Government Vote.

I am highly complimented by the Deputy's animosity. I should hate to be regarded as a friend.

That is very profound. The Deputy has never volunteered to answer a "Good morning" from me and never will.

As I was saying, the credit of the country stands high, very high. The Minister pointed out in his Budget speech that the short-term loans have been a success. It is a wonderful thing to see that at last in this country we have been able to bring about the use of our people's money on a short-term loan basis. In every possible way there has been confirmation of confidence in this Government. As I say, this coming financial year will show further improvement. There may be two more Budgets before we are faced with a general election. When the second of these comes, I am inclined to believe it will be so good that the Deputies opposite will indeed say it is in fact an election budget.

I do not know why Deputy Briscoe was getting so excited, in relation to the number of Fine Gael speakers in this debate to-day. I was not here since the debate opened but I was informed that there have been three Fine Gael speakers.

I did not say speakers. I said people here listening.

I am sorry; I thought the Deputy meant speakers. This is the Minister's third Budget. Presenting it, he said that the Budget had balanced. Deputy Sweetman in his observations referred to that contention and showed conclusively that the Minister's claim to have balanced the present Budget was not a proper one to make. Not only did the Minister say the Budget balanced, but he said it showed a small surplus in contrast with the deficit of roughly £6 million incurred in 1956-57 and 1957-58. Deputy Sweetman pointed out that judging the present Budget on the same basis as those Budgets, it could be shown that the present Budget ended with a deficit of a little over £4 million.

The Minister says the present Budget has been balanced, but we are prompted to ask the question: how was that Budget supposedly balanced? For the Minister to say that it finished on a level figure is very misleading. We must remember that there was certain juggling and manipulation of figures by the Minister. I notice that manipulation took place in duplicate. Not only did he use the levies to meet current expenditure but he transferred certain moneys from the current expenditure programme to capital purposes, and said he would borrow a certain amount. In that way, he has to a certain degree presented a balanced Budget for the current financial year. It is easy to balance Budgets by using that device.

The reliefs provided in this Budget are being financed through the medium of over-estimation. That is a very singular device for providing reliefs. In this connection, it is interesting to contrast our position—in proportion, of course—with that obtaining in Great Britain; the reliefs given in the British Budget were given as a result of a surplus. That is the proper way in which to provide reliefs; reliefs should be given through the medium of profits made, so to speak. We cannot, of course, compare this country with a very rich country like Britain and I merely make the point to confute in some degree the claim made by the Minister that he was presenting a good Budget and one which was providing certain reliefs.

He over-estimated to the tune of £2,500,000. It is very doubtful if he will not have to come to this House before the end of the current year and ask the House to give him leave to find that £2,500,000—and maybe more— in the form of Supplementary Estimates. The record of this House in relation to Supplementary Estimates is an unenviable one. It is certainly not a good one. As a rule, governments find it impossible to finance the various projects they initiate from year to year and they have to come again to raise more money at the eleventh hour.

I should describe this Budget as a Budget of presumption. The Minister is presuming that he will spend £2,500,000 less than the total estimated. It is certainly not a Budget of assumption, for assumption means that one bases one's prognostications on events which have already taken place. Presumption, on the other hand, relates to prophecies or expectations of what may happen in the future. The Minister shows no surplus in the current Budget, despite all his protestations, and he cannot therefore lay claim to having put his financial house in order. He has shown a fictitious surplus. I think the amount is round about £100,000. That has been arrived at by juggling with and manipulating the figures.

The Minister referred yesterday to the National Debt. At page 5 of his Budget Statement, he said that the increase in the public debt this year was £15,000,000. On page 6, he said that a sum of £9,000,000 was effectively applied to the reduction of the public debt. I should like him to reconcile those two statements when he is replying. He has quite rightly pointed out the importance of reducing the incidence of national debt. Admittedly, such debt is an almost insurmountable obstacle to material progress. Our basic financial position is falsified if we put on the long finger the settling of our accounts. A day will come when eventually we will find that a large proportion of our current expenditure must be applied towards reducing our National Debt, towards the redemption of borrowings we have made. National debt is one of the greatest obstacles towards reducing indirect taxation. From our experience in local authorities, we know that these borrowings must be financed in the form of loan charges every year. Loan charges must be met out of the moneys collected by way of taxation.

I understand that in the current year the amount of national indebtedness is something in the region of £20,000,000. I do not know whether I am right or wrong in that figure, but I certainly read it somewhere. Does that include the indebtedness of local authorities as well? Is the figure an inclusive one?

The Minister referred yesterday to the various Government services and he made some very pertinent remarks, remarks with which I agree. It is axiomatic that there can be no public service without the personnel to administer and provide such a service. The Minister gave some very illuminating figures in relation to the amount spent on the various staffs in Government Departments and elsewhere: the Civil Service costs £17,000,000 in salaries; the Defence Force £3.3 millions; the Garda Síochána £3.6 millions; the teachers over £10,000,000. The total is £34.2 millions. Last year, the Minister in his Budget Statement said he would do all he could to economise.