Committee on Finance. - Vote on Account, 1948-49 (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (13th Dáil) – Wednesday, 10 Mar 1948

Committee on Finance. - Vote on Account, 1948-49 (Resumed).

The Dáil, according to order, went into Committee on Finance and resumed consideration of the Vote on Account for the year ending 31st March, 1949.

Major de Valera

The Minister in his statement in presenting this Vote on Account made it clear, however, that he accepted these Estimates as being forced upon him, and that he was having them revised with a view to effecting economies. He further stated that his objective would be, amongst other things, to reduce the cost of living. I think I am hardly misquoting him when I say that one of his weapons in achieving that end was to be economy in these Estimates and in the public services. Those statements of the Minister open out practically the whole field of the present economic situation in this State. In particular, his remarks suggest that the present position in regard to the cost of living in this country should be examined at this stage more closely, and also from the point of view of seeing whether what he proposes to do can reduce the cost of living without introducing a number of serious perturbations which might have quite undesirable results.

For these reasons I propose to analyse a little further the present position in regard to the cost of living with reference to the sums expended in this Estimate. The situation in which we find ourselves developed roughly as follows: just before the war in August, 1938, the cost-of-living figure stood at 173. From 1938 onwards the economic results of the war and the preparations for war made themselves felt in a shortage of materials, in inflationary pressures and similar phenomena which inevitably tended to put the cost of living up here as well as elsewhere. In sympathy with these tendencies, the cost-of-living figure in this country rose from 173 in August, 1938, to 294 in November, 1943. Now, that was in no way a surprising result when one thinks back on the history of that period—the crisis of 1940, the difficulty of getting supplies, the peculiar problems with which this country was faced, both because of its neutrality and because of its closeness to the then centre of operations in Western Europe. It is, therefore, all the more interesting to note that from November, 1943, to February, 1947, the cost of living in this country was stabilised at a practically static value. As compared with the figure of 294 in November, 1943, the figure stood at 295 in February, 1947. In the intermediate period the fluctuations were such as to justify one in saying that the cost of living during that period was held steady.

Now, that in itself was an achievement. That result was achieved by the methods adopted by the then Administration to control prices, to control wages and to adjust the economic fabric of this country to the then existing war-time conditions. That was the situation when the war concluded. However, it is common knowledge that, as from February, 1947, the cost of living rose sharply and, in fact, the figure (corresponding to the figures I have given) for August, 1947, was 319. In other words, during the first half of 1947, the cost of living rose sharply from 295 to 319 and a somewhat similar trend was to be noticed in food items alone. During the static period from 1943 to 1947, the cost of food items rose somewhat, but only from 261 to 271. By August, 1947, the increase in the cost of food items was represented by an increase in the indices from 271 to 300.

There was the situation which led to the present situation and the causes of these changes were briefly as follows. Up to the beginning of 1947, it was possible to keep the controls effective and the influences of outside world prices for such things as wheat and tea which we imported were not sufficient to nullify the efforts which the then Minister for Supplies was making at control. In addition, wages were stabilised by the standstill Order, but, as from the latter part of 1946, a number of factors operated to bring about the situation I have already outlined and they can, roughly speaking, be grouped under three headings. The three factors which sent up the cost of living in that period and which are responsible for the rise in the cost of living to-day are, firstly, the price of such commodities as wheat and tea which we had to buy outside this country, say, in America or India, rose sharply; secondly, the price of other foodstuffs particularly produced here at home rose for reasons which I shall give in a moment; and, thirdly, in September, 1946, the standstill Order was removed and it had its contributory effect in forcing up prices. Incidentally, the whole set of circumstances tended to confirm what the more orthodox of economists would have expected.

With regard to the first factor, the world prices which we had to pay for imported goods, imported necessaries, there was the price of wheat. I may say, in parenthesis, that I find some difficulty in correlating some of the prices quoted, but I think I am not far wrong when I say that, in 1945, wheat was available at £21 per ton c.i.f. and it rose sharply during the spring of 1947 to the corresponding figure of £34 per ton, if I have read the returns in this regard correctly. In any event, it is incontrovertible that, during that period, the price of wheat in America and elsewhere rose sharply because there was keen competition in the world market for that commodity. It was a natural price reaction to the demand for wheat in the world at large and I suspect also that there were such things as increased transport charges and production costs coming into the picture; but, be that as it may, this country was then faced, as to some extent it is now faced, with the problem of paying these very much enhanced prices for the wheat we must import or go without that wheat. And going without that wheat means that the present bread and flour ration could not be maintained.

In other words, with regard to the price which must be paid for the importation of that essential commodity, no Government in this country can have any control. All that the Government could do was, by artificial means here at home, to try to adjust the price to the consumer where it has no control over the price which the importer into this country, whether the State or private individual or State-sponsored company, must pay for that wheat. It was inevitable, therefore, that the natural tendency of such a situation was to put up the price of the basic article of food in this country, wheat, flour and bread. A somewhat similar situation existed in regard to tea. The price of tea soared at about the same time and the natural tendency was to put up the cost of living. The Government could have had no control over the primary cause for the increases under these heads.

The second set of factors which influenced and caused the rise in the cost of living were concerned with production here at home, the situation being, so far as one can summarise, that our farmers found that their goods also could fetch higher prices abroad and in England particularly. They had to face increased costs of production— fertilisers were more expensive and the removal of the standstill Order made their labour costs greater. Factors of that sort put up the price of our farmers' produce, together with the natural tendency resulting from increased demand. What could the Government do about that? What could the previous Government or this Government do about such a situation as that? No more than in the case of the foreign wheat could the Government directly keep down the prices of these commodities produced here at home.

They could not keep them down by the simple direct expedient of saying: "You cannot charge any more," and so keep the price down to the consumer in the cities and towns, because, in the first place, the export trade in cattle and such animal produce as we were exporting was vital to the economy of this country, and any step designed to prevent the farmer getting the benefit of the prices in England would have been very seriously detrimental to the whole economic fabric of the State, and, if he were to be allowed to get the value of that market, be could not very well be forced to sell to people in our towns and cities at a loss—production would fall immediately—so that because of the importance of three things, our export trade, the increased cost of production which the farmer had to bear, and the need for encouraging the farmer to produce as much as he possibly could, both for home consumption and export, it was not practicable for any Government, and would not be practicable for this Government, to step in and to say to the farmer: "You must sell at such and such a controlled price to the consumer in the city." That direct line of approach was out of the question, and immediately you allowed the farmer to get the benefit of that economic situation, to get his prices, you had a price problem for the consumer, notably in the towns. In other words, that situation, like the situation with regard to world prices, was forcing up the cost of living, and, by the very nature of the problem, the Government was restrained from adopting what some people might think would be the direct mode of attack.

The other factor then contributing to this rise in prices and cost of living was the removal of the standstill Order. I remember when I was sitting on the far side of the House a number of Deputies, before this Order was revoked, constantly crying for its removal and constantly they were given the answer that that Order was being maintained in the interest of the worker, because, if the Order were removed, wages would go up and increased wages would force production costs up, and, if production costs went up, prices to the consumer would go up, and that would mean an increase in the cost of living. In fact, a race between prices and wages would start and the unfortunate fact, as such history as is available to us on the matter shows, is that, when that type of race starts, it is prices which win and the worker who is worse off. For that reason, the standstill Order was held for some time, but, unfortunately, because of the other two factors I have already mentioned, it was necessary to remove the standstill Order in September, 1946, but the very removal of that standstill Order also contributed to the inflationary trend, with the result that these three factors together put up the cost of living during the early portion of 1947 from 295 to 319.

These are the plain facts of the situation and the question is: "What possible remedy can you adopt in a situation such as that?" It seems to me that the remedies which can be adopted are, just as the causes, threefold. The remedies, taking them vis-a-vis the causes, would briefly be these. Firstly, you may try to subsidise, but subsidy is a very limited weapon and is really only a matter of forcibly adjusting the money available, or diverting the money available into certain specific channels. It cannot be a wholesale remedy for such social evils. The second line of attack is price control, but that also is limited, as price control suffers from two defects. It suffers from the difficulties of administration, which of themselves mean more cost; a very elaborate price control scheme means increased cost in administration and increased difficulty in administration; and also price control of itself tends to make black markets. For these reasons, the remedy of price control—while, if it must be applied, it should be applied— is of limited application, just as the weapon of subsidies. Lastly, there is the question of wage control. It was thought at that time that it was better to get wage control for the future on a voluntary basis; and I think all sides of the House are agreed that if that can be achieved, if wages can be related to prices by the voluntary co-operation of the unions concerned and the workers, it will prove in the long run and in the short run to be the most satisfactory weapon for dealing with such a problem.

In the long view, the only remedy for this situation—it is almost a physical law of nature—where we have a rising cost of living, is more production, a greater quantity of goods, particularly the necessaries of life, particularly those items which directly affect the cost of living in its natural sense—and even in the artificial sense, of the various items that are taken for weighting and computing the index. Therefore, it seems to me that even at the present moment, no alternative is open to the present Government for dealing with it other than the devices which have been employed to date, devices which, when external circumstances permitted it, proved reasonably effective during the years 1943 to 1947, devices which since September last have shown that at least the cost of living can be stabilised where it is, if not reduced. Those devices, in a nutshell, are a reasonable scheme of price control, as I have mentioned, coupled with a reasonable system of subsidies—but that remark must be subject to this qualification, that the aim should always be to try to get away from subsidisation if possible and that, in imposing subsidies, a long view should be taken and items likely to fall in price in the future should be selected for subsidisation rather than items likely to rise or to remain chronically dear.

Thirdly, there is voluntary wage control, the correlation of wages with prices, which the last Administration was attempting to achieve by co-operation. I am virtually certain that the present Administration will tend to take the same course. As things stand at the moment, I fail to see that, for an immediate or short-term remedy, any other course is open. It seems to me that the present Administration will be charged, for the immediate future at any rate, with the task of maintaining price control and of providing subsidies, apart from the question of voluntary wage control; and that, in particular, the Minister for Finance will be faced with the problems of finding the money for the administration of a price control scheme and finding the money for subsidies. If he continues on the basis of subsidisation—I am not dealing with how to raise the moneys for the subsidies but of the actual subsidisation of the items concerned—he can expect not only to get the cost of living down but he can expect to maintain the stability in that situation which has existed up to the moment. During the critical period early in 1947, 70 per cent. of the total rise in the cost of living was due to an increase in the cost of foodstuffs, mainly such things as butter, which was responsible for three points of a rise and which was a consequence of the guaranteed price for milk which was given to the farmers, this being another example of how a benefit in one direction has to be paid for in another. The increased price of meat, due to the increased market prices, meant an increase of 7½ points. Eggs, because of the export policy, had gone up three points. The market situation put up potatoes by three points, sugar by one point and, owing to the world situation, tea by 7½ points, and these accounted for a total of 70 per cent. of the total rise in the cost of living in that period. It was a very substantial one, being well over 20 points. Clothing, however, was only a fraction. In spite of all the talk that we heard about profiteering in the clothing business, the fact remains that clothing was responsible only for something less than 1 per cent. in the total rise in the cost of living. Fuel, however, and other sundries of that nature accounted for 12 per cent. There is the picture and in addition to that, because of the taxation which was necessary in order to give the social services which so many Deputies demanded, the tax on cigarettes and tobacco accounted for 10 per cent. in the cost-of-living rise. Notwithstanding all these increases the methods adopted last autumn succeeded in bringing down the cost of living.

When one approaches the problem in this way and analyses it, one sees that the present Administration is faced with a problem, and mark you, they are faced with a problem which they must deal with in a short-term way for there seems to be no other rational method of attack, no other method of attack which will not bring perturbations into the economic system, the disadvantages of which would outweigh the advantages which they seek to give and which they may in fact give.

Where does this leave the present Administration? It leaves us with this. The present Minister is faced with the problem of maintaining both the administration and the administrative machine for preserving the present —or at least a modified form—price control, and he is also faced with the difficulty of finding the moneys for the subsidies. I think no matter what his or my or anybody else's general views on the matter may be, that he will be forced to maintain those subsidies, at any rate for a transitional period. That is the immediate problem. In the long-term view he is faced with the problem of providing, for the years during which he is responsible for the State Exchequer, the moneys for the long-term development of this State, the development which in the increased production of consumer and other goods will make living easier in this country. In all that of course he will be forced to take into account those outside factors and influences over which he will have no direct control. What is the present position? The last Administration faced up to the problem of finding the moneys for the subsidies. They faced up to the problem as to whether those moneys should be raised there and then, or as to whether they should be raised by some method of deficit financing. These were, so to speak, the current living expenses and the then Minister for Finance took the view that the money would have to be raised at once, and of course that simply meant taxation, whether direct taxation or indirect taxation. That was the genesis of what one must admit was the unpopular Budget of last autumn out of which so much capital was made by the then Opposition Parties up to the present time. That was one method of finding money; it found the money and results were achieved in that way.

My first word to the Minister for Finance in this Government is this: You are forced to find the moneys for these subsidies and for the maintenance of the administration of price control. You are committed to abolish the taxes which were imposed in order to raise these moneys, and the question is where and how will these moneys be raised. In asking this question I have in mind that the Minister proposes to float a loan and, if I understood the reports which I have read aright, the Taoiseach has promised further loans. But I am not jumping to conclusions and thinking that these loans would be applied to the purpose of supplying subsidies, because I think the Minister mentioned that certain capital expenditure would be met by these loans. If the loans are for capital development my remarks in so far as they are critical do not apply, but if it is the Minister's intention to apply these loans for the purpose of current running expenses— because that is really what it is—then I think that we are in effect mortgaging our future.

Captain Cowan

Is this a suitable time to be discussing the loans at all?

Major de Valera

I am discussing the loan that——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is going on to taxation.

Major de Valera

I am, Sir, because this will come in as a question of taxation later.

An Ceann Comhairle

This is a question of policy.

Major de Valera

With all due respects, Sir, surely the question of taxation must come in to any question of financial policy.

Mr. McGilligan

This is not a matter of financial policy. This is the Estimates.

Since remarks have been made about the loan I must, however, be allowed to clear up difficulties and doubts raised by Deputies who do not understand the purposes of the loan.

Major de Valera

You cannot have it both ways. There is a problem in these Estimates and in the Vote on Account tied up with the finding of the moneys required by the Minister. The problem is further complicated for the Minister by virtue of the fact that, as far as I can judge, his Administration will not commit themselves to reducing social services and will, at least, accept the existing social services. Though the Minister may glibly talk about the debt of a previous Government I cannot see the Minister or some of his supporters cutting by one penny the social services which were granted in this State in recent years.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Do you want them to?

Major de Valera

I intend to deal very briefly with some of the incidents of the last few days. There has been a commitment to reduce the air services in this country. This point has been talked about at some length in this debate. I merely want to add two further points to the objections to the course which the present Administration has adopted. Briefly, my points are, first, that the problem of supplying technicians in this country has been an acute one to date. One of the problems of developing these air services has been the supply of technicians. For the future development of the world, in which aircraft will play a large part, the supply of technicians will be of great importance. It will, therefore, be of great importance to us for whatever air services we are maintaining. If then the axe is to be applied to this project what is going to happen to the technicians who have now been trained or acquired and who are available—the technicians who, if they are let go, will be very difficult to replace?

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Would the Deputy say that they are worth £1,000,000 a year?

Major de Valera

In the long term it is very hard to assess their value in figures, but, undoubtedly, they are likely to be of very great value to this country.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

One million pounds per year?

Major de Valera

Particularly as we have been rather weak in the technical line.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must be allowed to make his speech.

Major de Valera

Our first problem, then, is that if the axe is applied to this project what is going to happen to the technicians—not only what is going to happen in regard to that personnel which is a consideration, but are those who came into the country to be forced out of it again and are our own trained technicians to be forced to seek employment elsewhere? Is the State going to lose the benefit of the technical training of these men individually? Worse still, is the State going to lose the benefit of such technical skill as we have in the country in that line? These are problems which require consideration. It is not enough to say that we should save money. Alternative provisions to protect our technical development and to see that alternative employment is provided for the men so affected are as important an item for the Government as the saving of a certain amount of money. That is item No. 1.

Item No. 2 is that this is a question which is tied up with defence. I do not intend to go into that question now further than to say that the development of our civilian aviation forces has an important bearing on our defence problem. We find it hard enough to allocate moneys for defence in this country. We find it extremely difficult to maintain an Army at all. That portion of our national activities that is directly associated with defence should therefore be considered in a special way. In this regard, the supply of technicians, ground crews, and pilots available in civil airlines is an important consideration in defence schemes or a possible defence expansion in times of emergency. These are problems which will more properly arise on the Defence Estimate but they arise generally now. Again, if the present Administration is going to apply the axe to the air services, what alternative provision will be made to secure the necessary development of that technically important operational arm in times of war?

Last, the third question is one which affects our ex-servicemen. After the war, a number of the boys, who answered the call in 1940 and served whole-time with the colours, were employed in our air services. There was a serious problem at that time to reestablish them in civilian life. Not only were some of them re-established in these services but some of the regular officers going on retirement—officers who had given very valuable service to the country since the foundation of the State—were transferred in a civilian capacity to these air services where they have given equally good service. These officers had associated with them both men of the regular forces and men of the emergency and reserve forces who, on demobilisation, were found suitable for employment in that project. I understand, too, that some of the men who were trained as pilots were also absorbed. There you have ex-servicemen, men who gave six years and many of them, indeed, who gave 20 years in whole-time service in the Army of this State. These men deserved well of the community. They certainly deserved better than to be told next morning that there was no further employment for them.

If the Government decides on an economy of this nature, what provision is the Government going to make to ensure that these men are not victimised, thrown on the streets unemployed, or forced to emigrate? It is a serious problem enough to force a technician away from his job, but to force a man who has a training, who has a tradition, on whose fate largely depends the morale of the Defence Forces of the country, because young people making a career of the Army will naturally look to the treatment their predecessors received in the end——

Captain Giles

You did not do much for them.

Mr. M. O'Higgins

There will be plenty of work in this country under this Government.

Major de Valera

I am glad to hear Deputy O'Higgins say that, but I ask what alternative provisions will be made to absorb the personnel from these services?

That brings me logically to another subject which was mentioned in this debate. Again, I am not going into the rights or wrongs of trying to effect economy. I am merely facing the problem that is presented by that decision, because this Minister, like any other Minister or any other Government, is going to be faced with a number of conflicting problems. That is in the nature of things. I desire only to ascertain whether one thing has been balanced with another. The problem is this: a large number of men are going to be laid off as a result of the decision in regard to turf. In these schemes a large number of ex-officers and men were absorbed. I have not got the figures, but from various information at my disposal, I know that the Turf Board absorbed a number of ex-officers as supervisors. That included regulars, men who had served the full time with the Defence Forces, and a number of boys who sacrificed their careers to serve in the Army during the emergency. What is going to happen these supervisors now? What is going to happen the ordinary ex-servicemen employed on these schemes? Will alternative employment be provided for them? That is the least that should be done. I take this opportunity to press on the Minister the claims on the community of these men in that regard.

Almost inevitably, that point brings me to the question as to whether economies of this nature are in the long run going to benefit the country, in so far as economies of this nature are aimed at reducing opportunities for employment and reducing production, because on a balance sheet basis, the cost is too high. If that is to be the policy, I fear that grave consequences in regard to unemployment will follow. Actually, the figures available have shown that unemployment decreased as opportunities for employment in this country increased. For some years past a number of factories and industries were started and developed in this country. These absorbed a considerable number, approximately 100,000, I think, just before the war. To that extent, there had been an amelioration of the unemployment problem in this country. It seems to me that in the future more industries and more productive activity here at home involving a large number of people in employment are the only way in which to secure employment here and ultimately to reduce the cost of living for the country as a whole. Since the war there has been a marked increase in certain directions over the 1938 level. Production has certainly increased. Since the war closed there has been a steady increase in employment and last year there were about 4,000 more people in employment within the country than there were in 1939. The substantial increases I have already mentioned had been recorded up to 1939. Obviously then there is a favourable trend in that particular direction at the moment. Added to that the production trend had risen. There has been a 10 per cent. increase in production in certain specific industries mainly in relation to transportable goods. In some instances there has undoubtedly been a decrease, such as in timber, soap, candles, grain milling industries and vehicle assembly. That is understandable because of scarcity of imported raw materials for these particular industries. It is an incontrovertible fact that at the moment in this country there is an upward trend in both production and employment. That being so, it would be a definitely retrograde step to take any action now which might involve putting men out of employment in any particular sphere unless one is immediately able and ready to place men so displaced in suitable employment elsewhere. That is not a problem which is simple of solution in the case of technicians because technicians are valuable in a particular way.

These are the problems to which I wish the Minister to face up at the moment. The Minister is faced with a problem of finding money for his subsidies and for his administration. What economies does he propose to effect? If the economies contemplated are such as would involve the wiping out of schemes which give employment at the moment, such as the turf scheme, or the wiping out of valuable technical developments with potentialities for the future, I refrain from directly criticising the administration at the moment for doing that. But I definitely ask the Minister to inform us as to what alternative provision is going to be made.

Apparently the question of the loan and such other fiscal provision for the future must wait for another opportunity. An inspection of this Vote on Account clearly shows that the Minister is not in a position at the moment to make any major adjustments in the Estimates. In asking for this sum on account it seems to me too that he cannot see his way at the moment to any very marked economy on any one particular item and that he is hoping merely to effect small economies on as many items as possible. If that is his idea I would warn him again of the dangers likely to ensue from such action as has already been taken. I fear that it is an omen of still further retrogression in the future. I hope, however, that that fear is without foundation. If the Minister is anxious to persist with the development of this country we on this side of the House will appreciate to the full the problems that confront him together with the problem of finding the necessary money. We shall be fair in our criticism at all times and we shall try to make our criticism constructively helpful. I would ask the Minister to refrain at this stage from going back to the crippling financial policy which brought down the Government of which he was formerly a member and which brought the country into a certain state of depression in the years 1931 and 1932. None of us wishes to experience that again.

Captain Cowan

There seems to me to be a certain artificiality about this debate. We are in the position that the Minister will take no responsibility —or very little responsibility—for the Book of Estimates now presented to the House. The Opposition are in the position of endeavouring to justify and defend those Estimates. On this Book of Estimates, showing a figure of £70,000,000 which, with the Central Fund, would ultimately be increased to £76,000,000 with possible Supplementary Estimates later in the year, had Fianna Fáil remained in office the tax-payers of this small State would have been called upon to foot a bill of approximately £80,000,000.

This Book of Estimates, prepared by the late Government and presented to this House now, is a very clear record of the rake's progress in squandermania. Big as the bill is as a whole, on looking through the items in this Vote on Account we find that, while the bill is a huge one, under the Estimate for Social Services the provision for old age pensions is £20,000 less than it was last year; Superannuation and Retired Allowances are £53,000 less than last year; Widows' and Orphans' Pensions are £2,500 less than last year; National Health Insurance is down by £15,000; Gaeltacht Services are down by £4,000; Children's Allowances are down by £47,000; Unemployment Insurance and Unemployment Assistance are down by £2,000; and Army Pensions are down by £42,000. All these reductions are in the Estimates prepared by the Fianna Fáil Government and they tell us here that they had plans for increased and improved social services, that these plans were ready to be introduced and, if they had not the misfortune to be defeated in the General Election, they would have put these plans into operation at an early date. This is a small country with a population of less than 3,000,000. It is clear to me at any rate that we cannot afford this level of expenditure. Why is the expenditure so high? Deputy Lemass stated yesterday that 99.9 per cent. of these Estimates goes in salaries or wages. There was some correction of that, but I am not going to worry about it now. If one examines the Estimates, however, one will find that we are living on a scale that is unsuitable to this country; it is too high.

I asked the Minister for Justice a question yesterday with regard to one item, the use of State cars by Ministers of the previous Government and the cost to the public of that service. According to the reply of the Minister for Justice, each of these cars provided by this State for the Ministers of the former Government cost £1,369 a year to run. That is a shocking figure, and that does not take into account the depreciation in these cars. The capital cost of the 23 cars was £15,760. It is taken into account in these Estimates that there was an average of £1,369 expended by the State in the provision of transport for each Minister of the last Government and each Parliamentary Secretary who was provided with a car. That is a shocking state of affairs to contemplate. The Minister for Justice gave me details of the mileage travelled and the petrol used during a period of 80 days from 1st December last year to the 18th February, the date on which Fianna Fáil ceased to be the Government. In that period those cars provided for Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries travelled a distance of 127,773 miles, and they used in that short period 9,174½ gallons of petrol. That is a shocking state of affairs—9,000 gallons of petrol used by 23 individuals in a period of 80 days—and they talk about economies. My friend, Deputy Davin, says they did not use it successfully, but that is neither here nor there.

How can we run this small country if we are going to have, as I described it, such a rake's progress; if people entrusted with the responsibility of looking after the finances of this State incur that enormous expenditure in addition to the salaries that they obtained from the State? That is a matter that must be tackled by the present Government, and this House must tackle it when the opportunity occurs in the near future—the matter of gross waste such as that.

We all know how the provision of these cars arose in the first instance. They were provided as a protection for Ministers. They were cars in which military escorts would follow the Ministers. As I understand it, that was the position during the period of the Cumann na nGaedheal Government. But, from the change of Government in 1932, the position completely changed and, from being cars provided by the State to convey escorts, they were gradually converted bit by bit into cars that were made available for the absolute use of Ministers. We see in the Estimates for the Taoiseach's Department that the former Taoiseach was given an allowance of £350 a year to run a car. That was perfectly reasonable and sensible. It would be much better if there were some provision such as that made for Ministers and not have this absolute squandering or waste of public funds.

Mr. Davin

Is any Deputy entitled to cast a reflection on the Chair?

Mr. Killilea

Deputy MacEntee has not been casting reflections on the Chair. Deputy Cowan has been talking about legislation since he started.

Mr. Davin

An ex-Minister should know how to behave.

Captain Cowan

I am dealing with this Vote on Account and the waste of public funds. I will do my best to keep within the rules of order as applicable to this debate. Not only does this matter of waste apply in the instances I have mentioned, but it applies right through the whole country. One section of the community, a small section, are in receipt of too much of this world's goods, and the biggest section are in receipt of too little. That is one of the problems that we have to face. If this huge bill is to be out down, it can only be cut down by the elimination from it of unreasonable expenditure. I submit that it is unreasonable to have these provisions that I have mentioned.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must not discuss legislation by a side wind. I warned him that I cannot allow that.

Captain Cowan

That, to some extent, will reduce what I intended to say on this Vote on Account. The Estimate of £70,000,000 is made up of items, every one of which is covered by statutory authority. I do not dispute the ruling of the Chair; I would not attempt to do so, but it makes the discussion on this Vote on Account rather difficult.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy can discuss policy and administration but not legislation that has already got the imprimatur of the Oireachtas.

Captain Cowan

There must be a reduction in expenditure, and that reduction can be brought about only by this House. Several matters have been mentioned in the course of this debate, matters to which I would like to address myself for a while. I am not to be taken as being in support of any scheme, whether it comes from the Minister or not, that will reduce employment and cause people to be unemployed. I am not in favour of that, nor am I in favour of some of the comments I heard in this House with regard to our Defence Forces— our Army.

I agree substantially with Deputy Lemass when he said that the principle governing an Army must be its use to the State. If we decide that we must have a Defence Force and that that force to be effective must consist of so many officers and so many men, then we must as a Parliament provide the finances necessary. I cannot imagine that the Minister for Finance proposes to reduce the present inadequate strength of the Defence Forces; I cannot imagine that he proposes to make the Defence Forces useless, and, having done so, to expend £2,500,000 on them. That would be sheer waste.

Following the line of argument that has been used here, it is necessary that this House should have some confidence in the Defence Forces. I think it has that confidence. The House has confidence in the General Staff of the Army to recommend the proper force that is necessary for the security of this State. I was rather worried to-day when I read of a new appointment by the Government—the appointment of an A.D.C. to the Taoiseach. I read about it in the public Press to-day. I do not know the person concerned, but, on referring to Iris Oifigiúil, I found he had been appointed to a temporary commissioned rank in the Defence Forces as from 27th February. He was appointed to the rank of commandant, and I presume that appointment was made in that rank because the person concerned was too old to be appointed to a lower rank.

I will be critical of the Government when it is necessary to be critical. If we are to have confidence in the Defence Forces that we spend so much money on and talk so much about, we should have enough confidence in it to take out an officer and appoint him to such a post as A.D.C. to the Taoiseach. I know that in doing what has been done we have been following a precedent created by the previous Government. I hoped that we had gone beyond that. Army service is honourable service and promotion in the Army should be the result of honourable service. I hope there will be no necessity for me in the future to criticise any such appointment as I read about in to-day's papers.

If we look at the Civil Service, if we look at public appointments and if we look at the Government, we will find that the whole organisation appears to be quite wrong. No person seems to be anxious to do any hard work himself and so he must have an assistant or a secretary and a secretary to that secretary. The result of that is that we are completely and absolutely overloaded with a service that, as a country, we cannot afford. We pay those people—certain sections of them anyway—salaries larger and higher than this country can afford. If economies are to be achieved there must be a complete examination of this whole problem of the public service. Just as we expect the agricultural worker and the farmer to do a hard day's work, so there must be the same obligation on our public men of all kinds.

Work seems to me to be one of the essential preliminaries for the salvation of this country, but there is not the encouragement to work that there should be, nor is there the provision for work. If we go down to Talbot Street even to-day we will find there probably 50, 100, 150 or 200 of the finest of our young boys being labelled there for export to Great Britain. That has been going on for years, bleeding this country white. This new Government must face that problem. If it does not face it and deal with it, then I can see no future or no hope for this nation. If work is to be carried out, particularly in our rural areas, the people who do it must be paid. Our primary producers who have been mentioned here—our farmers—must be paid for their work. The great difficulty there seems to be —to some people anyway it seems to be impossible of solution—to be able to give our agricultural and rural workers enough wages, at the same time guaranteeing to the farmers a decent livelihood and keeping the cost of living within bounds. That seems to be the problem and people do not seem to be able to see a solution for it.

Mr. MacEntee

I thought the Deputy had it.

Captain Cowan

If the Deputy will just permit me I shall enlighten him. As I say, some people do not seem to be able to see a solution to that problem. I suggest that the solution is a simple one, and that if these problems are to be dealt with that solution must be put into operation. We must start on this basis that the worker is entitled as of right to a living wage. If the worker on a farm is guaranteed a living wage, the farmer must be put in a position to be able to pay it to him. That will involve and necessitate increased prices for the farmers. It will also involve and necessitate increased production. That can be brought about if machinery is made available to the farmers of the country in the quantities required. If we are able to bring to the aid of our farmers some type of co-operative organisation, if the State can make available to them all the machinery that they need, there will be an increase in production. By guaranteeing an economic price for his produce to the farmer he will be enabled to pay a living wage to his workers and at the same time make a decent livelihood for himself.

There are many ancillary problems which arise out of that. There is the problem of finance. If there is one thing that I am very pleased to see in this new Government it is that Deputy McGilligan is the Minister for Finance. It will be necessary to have a complete change in our financial outlook here and to give to our own Central Bank the power and authority to create whatever credit we need for full employment and full production. I am quite certain that in this House Deputy MacEntee would not suggest that that would be raiding the savings of the farmers. But that is the answer he would probably give in another place to it. These problems which face us must be dealt with. They must be approached first and foremost in a competent and sensible way, and, secondly, they must be dealt with in a comprehensive way. I am quite certain that, if the new Government approach these problems with the determination to solve them, they will solve them, but side by side with the application of the solution there must be, as I said at the beginning, a pruning, a cutting down of this unnecessary and this gross expenditure. As a nation we should all endeavour to try to make conditions bearable for the great majority rather than, as we have been doing, making them luxurious for a small minority.

Now, air development has been mentioned. I must say that I have considerable sympathy with the arguments advanced by Deputy Lemass and Deputy Vivion de Valera. I cannot imagine that it is the intention of the Government or of the Minister to wipe out this whole air service. I am quite certain that is not the intention. I cannot believe it would be the intention. What the Government has done, as I understand it, is to halt expenditure until such time as they have an opportunity of investigating and examining into the problem, and no one can object to the Government acting in that way, because they have the responsibility of ensuring that any concern run by or with public funds is being run in the best and most economical way. I am quite sure that when the Government and the Minister have had an opportunity of fully examining this matter of air development, they will be able to put, on one side, the national advantages, and, on the other, the financial expenditure and that it is more than likely that that air service will be continued and developed on sensible lines. Where you had a Government like the Fianna Fáil Government, which was only concerned with one thing, lavish, gross and unnecessary expenditure, there is no doubt that the position had got completely, absolutely and entirely out of hand, and, when a new Government comes into power, it is reasonable to expect they will examine at the earliest possible date every aspect of every scheme that such a lavish Government initiated or put into operation.

The biggest single item in this Book of Estimates seems to be the amount, approximately £12,000,000, which is provided for food subsidies. That represents a huge problem, a problem which will have to be faced and faced very soon. Is there any substantial reduction in the cost of living—and in this respect I am asking a question rather than criticising—where you reduce certain items in cost, and, at the same time, raise by taxation the moneys to make good those reductions? I have not examined this problem. I intend to do so. I intend to examine it in so far as I can bring it down to the individual, to what the individual saves by the reduction in the cost of living due to the subsidy and what the individual has to pay in taxation to provide the subsidy which enables the reduction to be brought about. I do not know if any figures are available on that point, but I certainly would like to examine it right down to the very end. It may be that, when it is worked out, we will find that a substantial portion of this sum of £12,000,000, or a substantial portion of the money raised by taxation for subsidies, goes in administrative expenses in collecting the tax and paying the subsidy.

Legislation may or may not be necessary for that purpose, but I suggest to the Government that, if there is to be a real and practical effort to reduce the cost of living, and thereby to reduce State expenditure, it can be done only in that way.

I have no intention of taking up the time of the House any longer on this matter. This Government must get some little time to examine these problems and they should have the complete and absolute co-operation and assistance of every person in this House. The problems to be faced are enormous. After 16 years of high expenditure, 16 years in which the Government were not concerned, as they should have been, with the interests of the ordinary person, 16 years during which the very best of our young people were forced out of the country, this new Government, endeavouring to create new employment and put an end to the drain of emigration, endeavouring to improve conditions for the ordinary person, must get a chance in this House. That does not mean that this Government can sit down for a long period with the idea that they are not to be criticised from one side or the other. As far as I am concerned, I intend to be critical of the Government, whilst supporting them generally. If their solution of these financial problems involves the unemployment of big numbers of people, throwing them out on the dole without any alternative occupation, then I must say very clearly that I could not give the Government support in any such policy.

Mr. Hickey

I have always considered that the time of this House is valuable and I regret to say it has been abused very often. I listened yesterday and to-day to long speeches with very little reality in any of them. One would imagine that some Deputies assume there was no other problem facing us at the moment but that of unemployment because of something they assume the Government is going to do. I think that those statements are dishonest.

Mr. McCann

People have got notice to quit their jobs.

Mr. McGilligan

Who?

Mr. McCann

Twenty-five people, in Dublin alone.

Mr. Hickey

I am aware that 80,136 workers were compelled to sign on at our labour exchanges last week. That problem should be faced. Hearing Deputies from some of the counties I have some knowledge of, one would imagine that those whom they represent here were living in some frugal comfort. I admit that some of our people in Cork and Kerry are living at a standard not worthy of a Christian country, yet we have the time here wasted in discussing the possible unemployment of men who are not yet out of employment. The comfort in which we sit here and the carpets and luxury of this House are mainly due to the men and women who work in the field and factory and it is about time we came down to earth and dealt with those problems.

Deputy Sheehan yesterday told us that if the Labour leaders only advised workers not to go on strike we would be a very happy country. For the last 30 or 32 years I have been getting advice from employers and criticism and advice from those I represent as being too conservative, and I am afraid that what is wrong is that we are not prepared to face the change that it is necessary to make in this country. Let me say, in passing, to the Minister for Finance, regarding the new loan about to be floated—as I said before and now repeat—that we cannot borrow ourselves into prosperity. We are already taxing our people over £4,000,000 a year to service our national debt and very nearly the same amount for our municipal debts. Now we are going to tax them for further borrowing. I submit that our credit is based on our resources and the capacity of our people to produce goods and services. The people who should be in control of that credit are the Government of this country, and the sooner we face that problem the better for ourselves.

I heard Deputy Kissane yesterday talking about increasing the price of milk. I am by no means opposed to that. The hardest worked people are the farmers and farm labourers and their wives and daughters. The farmer should be paid a proper price for producing milk. There is very little use in having £1 in your pocket if you cannot buy sufficient milk and butter for the week. During the past week one of my constituents met me going to the station and said: "I am off." I asked where, and he replied: "I am going to Somerset." He was a man very advanced in years and told me he was going over as an agricultural labourer. I asked him his age and he said: "I was 57 last June." He was going across to England to give his labour to produce the food off the land at £4 10s. 0d. for a 48-hour week. Is it possible that in this country we could not pay the people on the land at least £4 or £4 10s. 0d. to produce the things we want? What are we afraid of? Are we afraid because someone said a while ago: "Where is the money to come from"? Deputy Vivion de Valera spoke for about an hour, and I was looking forward every minute to see if he would offer some solution, to relieve the Minister for Finance, as to how to get the amount of money required. He sat down leaving us as dull about it after his hour's speech as we were before he started. The sooner we face the problems of our people, the sooner there will be some recognition for the work of this House. Deputy Sheehan, who is Lord Mayor of Cork, said that he would solve the problem. I happened to be in Deputy Sheehan's place a few years ago and we wanted to get a loan of £250,000 at 4 per cent., but we were boycotted. Not a bank in Cork, not a bank in all Ireland would give us a shilling for that loan. To-day we are told that there is £373,000,000 in our banks. In one bank alone there is £23,000,000 more on deposit this year than last year. I submit that money is not the real criterion of wealth and prosperity while people are living in hovels, while people are without sufficient butter and milk and while people are compelled to live in houses in Cork City and elsewhere which are unworthy of a Christian country or of a Christian Government which has been legislating for the country for the last 25 years.

I submit that the first thing to tackle is to try to feed our people. Let us not be afraid to spend money on our land. We took over £3,000,000 or £3,500,000 recently from those who were making excess profits from the emergency in the country, and if that £3,500,000 were given to the men on the land to pay wages and to produce food for the nation, that would be something like government. I was really surprised by some of the speeches made by Fianna Fáil Deputies and by their attitude.

In conclusion let me say this. I suggest that you should show that you are in earnest about social justice and social changes. Experience of life has convinced me that truth, honesty and goodwill ultimately prevail, and we must always remember and believe that the commonsense of the average man and woman will always assert itself. If men or principles or institutions fail to serve the human need they must be replaced by men, principles and institutions which do serve that need.

While I realise that the problem before us is a serious and a very grave one, if we are true and faithful to our ideals and have faith in our ability to serve the nation, then I am satisfied that we can face the future with confidence.

Mr. M. O'Reilly

Deputy Hickey and Deputy Cowan seem to be under the impression that if we had plenty of money we could solve all our difficulties.

Mr. Hickey

I said no such thing.

Mr. M. O'Reilly

Deputy Hickey stated that there was any amount of money in the banks and if that money was withdrawn we could build any amount of houses. Deputy Cowan told us that if we turned on the old printing machine we could solve almost entirely the farmers' difficulties.

Mr. Cowan

More distortion.

Mr. O'Reilly

I do not think that that could be done. Anyway, it will have to be admitted that we got through the ordeals of the last six years with very considerable success. It is true that there was unemployment, and because of the dislocation and shortage of materials produced by the war it was inevitable that there would be, but we got through reasonably well. According to Mr. Dillon, who is in charge of the larder now, Deputy Lemass and Deputy Smith had provided us with food for the next three years at least and I think that it will be admitted that that is very important. The Minister for Finance told us yesterday that our credit was good and it being good, he proposes to make some use of it.

Due to the construction of this House at present, I feel that it is my duty and the duty of many Fianna Fáil Deputies, almost all of whom represent rural areas, to see that the agricultural industry gets something refunded to it from this country. For the past six years the farmer and his worker have stood in the gap; when famine threatened they did their utmost to stave it off and they succeeded. I do not think that the solutions proposed by Deputy Hickey and Deputy Cowan are going to be put into practice and I believe that the Minister for Finance will use the only method that can be used, and that is increased production. We cannot have that unless we pay back the debt to the farmers that is due by the country. We have taken the thing which is most important to them and that is fertility For six long years that has been extracted for the benefit of the city and town populations. Therefore, I think that whatever money can be made available should be used by the Minister for Finance in conjunction with the Minister for Agriculture to try to restore that fertility. But not at £11 10s. 0d. per ton for superphosphates. The British farmer and the Northern Ireland farmer have fertilisers at £4 10s. 0d. I think that the House will agree with me that that is a handicap that our farmers cannot stand and consequently Deputy Byrne's plea last night was altogether a plea to the gallery. He knows as well as I do what the position is. What difference does it make to the farmer what wages he pays, if the communities in the cities and towns refund it? They cannot do that and the only remedy therefore is to increase production and I am sure that the Minister for Finance will try to earmark as much money as possible in order to restore fertility. If that is done the farmer will supply all the stock that it is possible to supply to Great Britain, and in case any accident happens to the wheat which the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Industry and Commerce have guaranteed to us and it does not reach our shores, the farmer will still be able to stand in the breach.

It is true that the agricultural worker had a bad time, and it is true that the farmers had a bad time and have a bad time. It is quite true that outside the Fianna Fáil Party no Party here represents the rural areas or the farmers. I suppose that instead of calling this a Coalition Government I should call it a Fine Gael Government, but remember that there are nine constituencies in which they are not represented at all. As regards Clann na Poblachta, they are purely a city Party, having merely three seats from rural areas, and, therefore, because the position is so unbalanced, I believe that the Fianna Fáil Party should emphasise the necessity of giving support to the agricultural industry because without it every other industry collapses. If that industry is not functioning well the Minister for Finance will find that he has considerable difficulties, those difficulties which we had to face up to during the long period of the late war. It was an enormous task to have to face up to and farmers had to be asked to do things that if you had to ask modern manufacturers who are highly protected to do, they would not dream of doing. If they had not the most modern machinery and factories they would not produce anything as they are so accustomed to protection. Farmers in this country were not accustomed to produce what we had to ask them to produce and they did so at enormous expense to themselves. Therefore I would urge the Minister for Finance to do all he can to help the Minister for Agriculture. I mentioned this fact to the Minister for Agriculture at a conference the other day and he very politely told me to refer to the Minister for Finance, which is what I am doing now. I believe that if that is done most of our financial difficulties, and many of our social difficulties, will be solved. I hope that the world confusion has somewhat abated although I am doubtful about it. If it has not we shall have to go back again to the farmers and to ask them to feed and support us for dear knows how many years. I see no definite indication that we are on the eve of peace.

On the contrary there seems to be very great confusion across the water. I see industrial confusion and the cutting of wages and salaries to the bone. That will have its reactions in this country. I must say that, looking forward and being able more or less to guess the condition of the world in the next three or four years, all I can do is to offer my sincere sympathy to the Minister for Finance. Not alone that, but, as far as we are concerned, I am sure we will give every possible assistance to him. Certainly, as far as the agricultural community—the worker and the farmer—is concerned, I believe we will do all we can for him.

I well remember, at the conclusion of the last war, on many occasions I heard such men as Deputy Dunne speaking to agricultural workers. As the older Deputies will remember, the storm came about 1921. There was a complete collapse and the unfortunate agricultural worker had not a bob to give, and the moment he had no bob to give there was no more organisation. He was left derelict until in 1933 or 1934 Fianna Fáil came to his relief. I did not notice any union or labour organisation bothering about him. He had no money—about 7/- a week when he could get it. Most of the older members of this House remember that well and we do not want to see it happening again. My view is that the farmer is quite honest. Let us give him a fair chance and he will give a fair chance to his workers.

Mr. O'Leary

Why did you not do so?

Mr. Dockrell

There was one part of Deputy Cowan's speech with which I was in absolute and complete agreement. That was his statement that these Estimates brought about a certain air of unreality. It is difficult to discuss matters for which the present Government are not completely responsible—they are, in fact, responsible for them only to a very small degree. However, I, in common with others, hope that when the main Estimates for the year come along some, at any rate, of the policies of the present Government will have had time to mature and we will then be in perhaps what I might call a more real financial atmosphere.

So far as these Estimates represent the estimated expenditure for the coming year they are very, very high. This country already has a very crushing burden of taxation and the increases are a very big proportion of the total expenditure. However, as I have said, the present Government is not responsible for that. Some of the Deputies on the other side of the House seem to be afraid that, in the drive and the anxiety to reduce expenditure, the question of employment may be forgotten. I think I can assure those Deputies that nothing will be more present to the Government's mind than the question of employment. It is a poor saving to take men out of gainful employment by virtue of a financial Act and to put them on outdoor or unemployment relief. That is a question which will be very much in the mind of the present Government and the Opposition may rest assured that that will not be done unless it is in the widest interests of the community that any unemployment whatsoever should be caused. I think I can say that the Government will not, by virtue of financial savings, cause unemployment. They certainly do not want to do so.

We have heard a good deal of discussion on the proposed savings in connection with the airlines. Nobody knows just what is proposed because the Government very wisely have halted further expenditure until they have had time to look into the matter and to see where it all leads. I take it that this relates only to the transatlantic service. From inquiries I have made I understand that the present transatlantic aircraft which we have purchased will very shortly be superseded by a newer, faster and what is at any rate considered a more efficient type of transatlantic plane. That shows the wisdom of the Government in calling a halt until they can completely examine the proposed scheme. I do not think that we in this small country have the money to embark on expensive transatlantic airliners which are in a very short space of time liable to become redundant. Furthermore, I do not think that Irishowned transatlantic airlines are necessary for the development of our tourist trade.

The tourists who come to this country and who will spend dollars in this country will come in American airliners or in airliners of any other nationality which are run efficiently and safely and, at the same time, cheaply from the point of view of the fare. I think those are the main considerations before tourists and I do not see why we, in this country, should think that the whole American nation is going to patronise exclusively Irish transatlantic airlines. I do not think for a moment that they are, and the only way in which this whole scheme can be judged is on its merits as a revenue-producing matter. We have heard talk about prestige in this connection. Our national prestige rests on more important and more solid matters than on questions of transatlantic airlines. In the past, we have never been able to afford atlantic liners. We have not any Queen Marys in this country and yet, before the airlines came along, we did a good American tourist trade—tourists carried in the ships of other nations. Exactly the same thing can happen in connection with transatlantic air services. I want to emphasise that I am talking now about transatlantic air services and not about other air lines which are operating over short distances. The lines which operate between Dublin and London, Belfast, Liverpool or say, Paris, Brussels and various other European centres to which our liners go at present, are quite capable of being a paying proposition and I think they are quite sufficient to keep the trained personnel in employment. Deputy de Valera referred to the necessity of keeping our technicians working. I think that the several airlines operating over short distances will keep all the technicians that this country can afford to keep, looking after every individual branch of our airlines. In connection with the question of having technicians in this country there is one factor to which I would like to refer. I do not know whether some Deputies realise that there is a very early retiring age for pilots. It is one of the great tragedies of air-service that when a man reaches the early forties he must retire. He then cannot pass the very stringent tests which are necessary for civil air pilots.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is a matter of detail.

Mr. Dockrell

I was merely mentioning that the early retiring age would mean that any country that was overloaded, as regards airlines, would inevitably have a large number of men retiring at what we would regard as an early age and looking for employment in the ordinary commercial world. A country of the size of Ireland would undoubtedly find it difficult to absorb persons of that age in suitable employment.

Deputy de Valera also mentioned the question of fuel. There is undoubtedly a big problem confronting the country and the Government in connection with the employment which was given in the past in cutting and hauling turf. Nobody on this side of the House, just as nobody on the Opposition side, wishes to see any hardship caused to individuals but there is the unfortunate fact that turf is a fuel which is not capable of very much handling at an economic price. It is a nice question as to how far the taxpayers' money can be expended in subsidising a commodity for the cities when a cheaper one can be found. I have no doubt that the Government will go into this question very sympathetically and will take into account the question of employment.

I do not wish to make a long speech as a number of Deputies have spoken at great length in this debate, but I would say that the Government will certainly keep in the forefront the question of employment and try to ensure that no cuts in expenditure will be undertaken which would have serious repercussions on the very important question of employment because what we are suffering from in this country is under-employment and under-production of all sorts. I believe that our new Government is going to face this problem in a serious way, in a way in which these problems have not been faced in the past. Out of their deliberations I believe, and hope, will come more employment for all our citizens and thereby greater prosperity for the country in general.

Dr. Ryan

Many speakers in this debate have talked about higher production, particularly higher production in agriculture. In deference to Deputy Cowan, I am assuming that we are going to carry on with private enterprise. If we do, I think that the principal inducement to agriculturists would be price—that is, that prices should be high enough, not only to pay all the expenses of agriculturists but to leave them something by way of profit. That profit can be secured either by giving them better prices or by lowering their costs. I take it that as far as the Minister for Agriculture is concerned, he does not intend to give any further inducement, at least in the present circumstances, in the way of price because he has answered questions yesterday and to-day with regard to the price of wheat, beet and milk. The price of milk, for instance, was fixed about 12 months ago. Since then there has been an increase, at least once, in wages and there has been, as many Deputies have pointed out, a very steep increase in rates so that the farmers' expenses have increased while the price of milk has remained static. The same applies to some extent to wheat, beet and barley, the prices of which were fixed last autumn. Since that time, wages have gone up and rates will also be higher for the coming year than last year.

We must, therefore, I take it, turn our minds more to the other side and see if anything can be done in the way of reducing costs to the farmer. The biggest cost to the farmer—I am talking of big farmers and in a way the same thing applies to small farmers— is wages. The bigger farmer employs men and wages represent his big cost. In the case of the small farmer who does his own work, his own time is his big cost, so really it amounts to the same thing—the payment of a man for his own time. That is a thing that no Deputy will suggest should be reduced so we have to go further. In fact, I think that Deputies from all sides of the House have expressed the desire to see agricultural wages higher. Undoubtedly when his wages and earnings are compared with the wages and incomes of other classes of the community, the agricultural worker does not stand in a very favourable position so that we should, if at all possible, make every effort to see that his wages are increased, as time goes on.

After wages, which are by far the heaviest item on a farm, you have rent and rates. In practically all farms now rents are fixed under the Land Commission; but rates are steadily increasing and, judging from an answer given by the Minister for Local Government here yesterday, the Government does not at the moment look with favour on "shifting the burden", as he put it, from the ratepayer to the taxpayer. We are faced, then, with the fact that rates are going up and that the farmer must meet them.

The farmer, like every other producer, has to purchase a large quantity of his raw materials. Probably the biggest item under that heading is fertilisers or artificial manures. The amount of artificial manures available during the last six or seven years was comparatively small. It has increased during the last year and this year it will increase considerably. The possibility is that this year the farmer will be able to purchase all the artificial manures he likes, taking into account price and everything else. In my opinion, there will be no necessity for any system of rationing; during the last six or seven years a system of unofficial rationing was in operation because of scarcity of supply. There is, of course, a subsidy on artificial manures. Deputy O'Reilly mentioned that the price of phosphates is very high compared with the price in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, where it is purchased by farmers who are for the most part in competition with the farmers here. He gave us some figures. Here we pay about £10 10s. 0d. or £11 per ton, according to the distance over which the manure travels. In Great Britain and Northern Ireland the price is £4 10s. per ton. That, naturally, makes a substantial difference on even the average-sized holding. A farmer who holds 50 or 60 acres would probably purchase up to three tons of phosphates in the year. That would be by no means an excessive quantity. To a certain extent he might be said to be cheeseparing in keeping his order down to three tons. The difference there is about £18. That is a substantial difference. The only remedy would be if the Department of Finance could see its way to increasing the subsidy. Any increase would have an advantageous effect from the point of view of the farmer and from the point of view of agriculture as a whole.

The second raw material that the farmer has to purchase is seeds. Some difficulty may exist about a reduction in the price of seed because in most cases the transaction is merely one between farmer and farmer. The bulk of the seeds used in this country are produced within the country. We are importing more seed this year than we have for the last six or seven years, but we are still not importing as much as we did pre-war. Even going back to pre-war the figure would be a small percentage of the total amount used in the country. Many farmers have their own seed potatoes. A large number of them have their own seed oats. A certain number have their own seed barley, seed wheat, and grass seed. Where seeds are purchased the bulk of such purchases come from other farmers within the country and it is rather difficult to see how the price could be reduced because the farmerproducer will naturally not accept less than he is getting at the moment.

Feeding was a bigger item pre-war than it is now because it is not possible at the moment to import any great quantity of feeding stuffs. A certain amount of wheat offals is available at the moment. A certain amount of maize is coming in which is ground and sold to the farmers. The price of wheat offals is quite a reasonable one and I do not think the farmer has any cause for complaint in that regard. His main difficulty is that he cannot get enough. It is selling at about £12 per ton and that is a reasonable figure at the present time. Maize, which is in short supply, is very much higher and runs to about 27/- a hundredweight. Maize is not quoted by the ton because no farmer is lucky enough to get a ton of it. It is extremely dear and it is questionable whether a farmer could make feeding pay at that price.

What happens is that the farmer has a certain amount of feeding stuff of his own—his own oats and a certain amount of inferior barley—and he purchases a small amount of maize to mix with his own grain in order to have a palatable mixture for his animals. In that way he can afford to pay a high price for a small percentage of his feeding stuffs. I have no good suggestion to offer in regard to maize feeding. Naturally, it would be a good thing if the farmer could get it at a lower price. From an administrative point of view it would be difficult to subsidise it. We all hope that the position will improve in the future with regard to the quantity of maize available and, when such improvement comes about, the Government can then consider the question as to whether it can be sold in larger quantities to the farmer at a more reasonable price.

These are the principal recurring costs that the farmer is called upon to meet every year. Another fairly big item would be capital costs used in the maintenance of housing for animals and the purchase and maintenance of machinery plus the upkeep of horses and small repairs to harness, etc. These capital costs are high for a farmer who tries to keep his place in the best order. Many farmers do not involve themselves in any capital costs because they are too high an incidence in their farming economy. The Fianna Fáil Government introduced a scheme to help the farmers to repair their farm buildings. I take it that the present Government will continue that scheme for the construction, maintenance and repair of out-offices and so on. Such a scheme has a two-fold effect. It enables the farmer to keep his animals in better condition during the winter and, if a farmer has good housing accommodation, the ordinary work of the farm can be done more economically and in a shorter period of time. It may also have the result of encouraging the young people towards a better contentment with farming life as a whole.

Where farms are badly kept and where housing is unsuitable it is hard to expect the young people to face the life of hardship involved, in the same way as their fathers and mothers did before them, when they know that conditions are infinitely better in the towns and cities. If we can make these farms more attractive we will have done something at least in the way of encouraging the young people to remain on the land. Therefore, I assume the Government will continue the farm buildings scheme. I would appeal to the Government even to improve on that scheme, if they can afford it. The farm improvements scheme was on similar lines, but that dealt more with the improvement of the land itself, that is to drain and reclaim the land, to improve the fences and to make the work out in the fields more economic for the farmer and more attractive for himself and his sons and employees. These combined will do something to help the progressive farmer to reduce his costs.

There is one other item which was considered when I was in the Department of Agriculture, and which I know was considered by my successor. The present Minister for Agriculture has often mentioned the matter and therefore I take it for granted he will pursue the inquiries to see what can be done, and that is, to bring equipment within the reach of the farmer. The big farmer is all right as he can afford economically to keep machinery like tractors, reapers and binders and even, if you like, a combined reaper and thresher. There are facilities for the purchase of these. They can get a loan to purchase them—not a grant. If the big farmer is a good farmer, it is an economic proposition for him to purchase this machinery. Therefore, we can dismiss him by saying that the facilities are there and it is up to him to get the necessary machines and to see that they are used as they should be and that he brings his system of farming up to what modern conditions demand.

When we come to the medium farm, however, farms between 40 and 60 acres, or even between 30 and 70 acres, unless the farm is an extremely good one which can all be tilled in rotation and in that way enable the farmer to keep 35 or 40 acres in tillage practically all the time, I do not think you can make the case that it would be economic for that farmer to buy these big machines himself. The thing I had in mind and which I know my successor had in mind and which the present Minister had often advocated from this side of the House was that we should try to facilitate co-operative societies or even private individuals to get the machines which could be put at such a man's disposal. If it is a co-operative society, of course the members would own the machines and would have the use of the reaper and binder or the tractor and plough or even the thresher, as the case may be. But co-operation is not possible everywhere. Co-operation has been a success undoubtedly, particularly in the south, in the counties Limerick, Tipperary and Cork, and to some extent in Kerry. But then, in the areas where we have smaller farms, like the West of Ireland and the Ulster counties which are in this State, co-operation has never been a great success and, therefore, I am not sure if a scheme like this can ever be carried out on a co-operative basis. What I should like the Minister for Agriculture to consider is whether some means could be found for the provision of machines for those small farmers in those areas where co-operation is not possible.

You may have to go very much lower down the scale in connection with some of these smaller farms than what might be regarded as mechanisation, such as power tractors, reapers and binders, etc. You may have to provide for their use such machines as horse-drawn corn drills, horse-drawn mowing machines and other machines of that kind because on these small farms it is not possible to expect the farmer to have more than a plough and a harrow of his own and he would need to have the use of these other machines if they could be provided.

I have been speaking principally of increasing the production of crops in advocating that we should try to help farmers in reducing their costs by providing them with more machinery. I had in mind, if you like, the tillage farmer. I do not want to go through other types of farming in detail, but I think some consideration might be given, and I presume will be given, to the production of grass. Now that artificial manures are again available in bigger quantities, I presume it will be possible to increase the yield of grass and, indeed, not only to increase the yield, but to increase the quality, because the quality of the grass is very important in feeding animals. The object in feeding animals in most cases is to produce meat, but in other cases, as in the case of the cow, to produce milk. Quality is very important as well as yield and quantity.

Yesterday there was also some discussion with regard to a social welfare scheme. Deputy Lemass stated that the scheme was ready. I should like to say that it is ready in this sense: that the Department has done the greater part of the actuarial work and is in a position to say to the Minister what the cost would be per week or per year of, let us say, giving 26/- per week to every person over 65 years of age. I am taking that figure because it is the figure that was provided for in what is known as the Beveridge Plan in the United Kingdom and the North of Ireland. The Department can go further. They can tell the Minister, if he wants this on a contributory basis or part of it on a contributory basis, what a weekly contribution will bring in, let us say, for every penny from those employed.

The Minister is, therefore, in this position, that he can make up his mind, if he wants to, fairly rapidly. I do not say that we expect him to make up his mind rapidly, because these things require some consideration. But he can make up his mind fairly rapidly as to what is the cost of giving old age pensions at whatever rate he likes when he sees what he can afford—whether it is to be 26/- or more or less.

When I took over the Department my first job was to take in all the services and amalgamate them— services such as old age pensions, unemployment assistance, unemployment insurance and national health—and then I commenced to get the data ready. It took nine or ten months to prepare and we were on the point of drafting what might be regarded as the basis for a White Paper. That was in the first draft in the Department. I did not give it any consideration; indeed, I had hardly read it, but the point had been reached when certain proposals could be prepared for the Departments and for the Government. It is a slow procedure and it takes some months to get through it, but that stage had been reached.

I also had asked the Department to get us the cost of benefits that they have not got in England. One is the marriage benefit, and I am glad to inform the House that it would not cost a lot of money to give a marriage bounty to every insured person. It is a scheme that the Minister will be rather favourable to when he comes to consider it. They have such things as maternity and death benefits in the Beveridge scheme and the figures for these would also be prepared. The statistical data are there now, but a very big task remains, the task of making up your mind as to what you can do. The Government will have to make their minds up to do whatever they think the country can afford, going as far as possible to meet the needs of the people concerned.

There are certain difficulties in this country that perhaps they have not got in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I would urge on the Minister that, if it is at all possible, he should cut out the differentiation in some of our schemes as between rural and urban areas and he should try to give the same rate all round. That may be difficult in some ways, if there is a high contribution fixed for the employee and the employer. For instance, the agricultural labourer has not a very big wage and it would be hard to expect him to contribute liberally to a scheme of this kind. But his employer is equally hard hit because the farmer, if he has to put a few shillings a week on stamps for each employee, must bear it out of his profits, whatever they are. He is not in a position to increase his price to make up for the increased cost, as certain other employers are. There are difficulties of that kind that will require considerable thought and ingenuity to surmount.

I am not inclined to minimise the difficulties that the Government will have in implementing a new social scheme. If this country were to adopt the same rates of benefit as are given under the Beveridge scheme in Great Britain and Northern Ireland we would probably have to find another £15,000,000 along with what is contributed by the employer, the employee and the State. That gives one an idea of the magnitude of this job of drawing up an ideal social scheme.

There will be many suggestions made, but this is not the time to make them. We had better wait until the scheme is ready because our conditions here are not at all on a par with the conditions in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. One big difficulty is that what are called the self-employed classes are very much lower in Great Britain and Northern Ireland than here. I was never satisfied that I could suggest any scheme that would be satisfactory for the self-employed classes. I do not know how the Department of Social Welfare will collect contributions from them, if there are contributions. Again, it will be a difficult matter to check up on sickness and unemployment among the self-employed classes. There are many difficulties and I would not expect the Minister to be able to produce a scheme within a week or two. I had hoped to be able to produce a White Paper outlining the statistical data and giving examples of what contributions of so much would mean in the way of benefits and giving that so that members of the various Parties could make up their own calculations as to what would be possible for a country like this.

One side of this question is what those who are working can afford to contribute to the unfortunates who are sick or unemployed, to the widows and to inevitable old age. On the other side we want to find out to what extent people with low incomes here require assistance. Everybody will agree that they require some further assistance. We want to find out to what extent they require it. I would like to say to the Minister for Health that there was a nutritional survey—the work went on for a couple of years—carried out under the direction of the Medical Research Council. The work was done according to international standards. The survey was first taken in Dublin and afterwards the staff worked in the country. Dublin was completed. In fact, I saw a draft of the summary of the results of the survey in Dublin before I left the Department. I think that would be an extremely useful thing for any Deputy to study. He would get a very good idea from the survey as to how people in the City of Dublin live. It deals, of course, altogether with food, but one would get a good idea from it of the living conditions of people in all strata in the City of Dublin—of the people in the lower income groups, of people with higher incomes and of people with very high incomes. The survey gives the food intake of the people in these various categories. A study of it would be very informative for members of the House. It would help them to make up their minds as to what additional amount would be required by way of social welfare for people who are not in a position to look after themselves.

I would ask the Minister for Health to look into that matter and see if it would be possible to issue a summary of the results of the survey in Dublin. It was taken, I think, in 1946. It took a long time to do all the various calculations and to make a summary of the results. The longer we go on the more out of date it becomes so that from that point of view also I think it should be published if possible. It would be useful not only to the Minister himself but also in considering this matter of social welfare.

In addition there is urgent need, as Deputy Ryan pointed out, for increased capitalisation of agriculture, for increasing the capital resources of the farmer, so that he can get the utmost production from his land. A very conservative estimate was made by Dr. Henry Kennedy some years ago, as a member of the Commission on PostEmergency Agricultural Policy. He gave an estimate of the capital requirements of agriculture. He pointed out that to restore the land to a proper condition of fertility and to have it properly drained and fenced would require £58,000,000, that to provide the necessary housing for live stock and the necessary out-buildings on agricultural holdings would require a capital of £98,000,000, that £23,000,000 would be required for the equipment of our farms in respect of implements and modern equipment, that £22,000,000 would be required to provide suitable stock on our farms, and £15,000,000 to provide decent water supplies. In all, he estimated that it would require £217,000,000 to finance the agricultural industry and put it on a really productive basis. That was not the estimate of some dreamer or faddist but that of a hard-headed expert who had learned by practical experience what agriculture requires. I mention that figure just to show the immense problem facing our nation and our Government in increasing agricultural production.

I do not quite agree with those Deputies who have advocated the co-operative ownership of farm implements. I believe that the problem of providing farm implements for the small farmer can be solved in more effective and more efficient ways. I do not think that co-operation or co-operative societies would be a success in that respect. I believe that, as we have found by practical experience, if a young man in a rural area is given an opportunity to purchase farm implements and work them for hire amongst his neighbours, he will give good and satisfactory service and keep those implements in proper repair and use them efficiently.

No amount of capital put into the agricultural industry, no amount of planning in regard to agriculture, will have any useful effect unless the farmer is absolutely secure in regard to market and to price for his produce. I appreciate the course taken by the Minister for Agriculture in guaranteeing the price of wheat over a period of five years. I think he has taken the proper stand in that matter. The farmer is entitled to a long-term price for his produce, but since that price was first fixed his costs have been substantially increased and I doubt very much whether that price will be sufficient inducement to him, for the present year, at any rate. Perhaps the cost of production will be decreased substantially before the next sowing season begins, but for the present season the price will not offer any margin of profit.

I do not know why Governments over such a long period have resisted the demand for an independent and impartial tribunal of inquiry into farmers' costs. I believe such a tribunal should be set up, to find out what it costs to produce wheat, beet and other produce, a tribunal which would publish the figures, which could not be disputed by the farmer, the consumer or any other section of the community. That is an urgent national need and until that need is met we will have these eternal wrangles in regard to price.

I asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce yesterday if he was prepared to guarantee fair prices for the chief produce of agriculture, including dairy produce, bacon pigs, barley and oats. The Minister said he could not undertake to give such a guarantee without knowing what the production costings would be over the coming years. He challenged me to make some suggestion on the matter. The suggestion I have to make is that a price be fixed, a long-term price subject to revision if the findings of an impartial tribunal show that the costs of production have either risen or fallen during the next five years. That is the only reasonable approach and the only reasonable solution of this problem. I am satisfied that you will get increased agricultural production provided the farmer is given a reasonable inducement.

The Minister for Agriculture has boldly said that it is the policy of the Government to keep outside the farmer's fence. I would like to be sure that that is a clear-cut statement of policy and not merely a deluding phrase. We would like to be assured that the officials of the Department of Lands will not go in upon any farm to acquire it compulsorily. Security of ownership and fixity of tenure are principles which must be firmly upheld and I hope the Minister for Agriculture will see that his principle of keeping the Government outside the farmer's fence will be adhered to. For the past ten years, it has been the policy of the Government to go inside the farmer's fence and fix the minimum wage he must pay to his workers. If that policy is continued, there is no use in any member of the Government pretending that the Government is keeping outside the farmer's fence. If you go inside to fix the wage he has to pay to his workers on the farm, you carry on your shoulders the responsibility of seeing that the farmer is in a position to pay that wage. That is a fundamental obligation you cannot escape.

Given justice and fair treatment in the matter of price and a reasonable attempt, an all-out effort, on the part of the Government to increase the supplies of fertilisers available, I can assure the Minister that the farming community will do their part to increase agricultural production. The Government announced that it was their intention to embark upon an all-out drive to provide houses for our working people. If there is anything next in urgency to increasing our agricultural production, it is the necessity of ensuring that our people will be decently housed. What are the obstacles standing in the way of decent housing at the present time? We are told that it is the shortage of materials. We are told, moreover—and it is, perhaps, even more serious, than the shortage of materials—that it is a shortage. of skilled workers.

What are the Government going to do about that shortage of skilled workers? How are they going to tackle that problem, and I want to ask also why is there a shortage of skilled workers? We are spending tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of pounds every year on technical and vocational education and why are not our technical and vocational schools turning out tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of skilled workers capable of taking their place in the building trade? Is it not true that there are certain organisations, certain cliques and certain societies which prevent the entry into the building trade of skilled workers? If there are, those organisations and societies must not be allowed to stand in the way of a drive, an effective drive, for increased housing. Whether they are organisations of contractors who are hoping to keep up the prices of building or of workers who wish to restrict entry into that business, they must not be allowed to stand in the people's way when they want housing and want it urgently.

There has been, I think, over the last 16 years too much exploitation of the people's urgent need for housing accommodation and of the Government's willingness and anxiety to provide that accommodation and also of the willingness and anxiety of the local authorities. There has been too much exploitation and too much profiteering and it is the duty of the Government in justice to the ordinary people of the country to see that houses are provided and that they are provided as cheaply as possible.

There is one problem which has not been referred to in the Government's ten-point programme. It is an urgent national problem and it has not been referred to to any great extent in the course of this debate, but I intend to refer to it. It is the problem of emigration.

I hold that it is the duty of the Government to do everything that is possible to keep our people at home in Ireland and to provide a living for them here in Ireland. A Minister of State has said that he is not alarmed or worried about emigration. I do not think that that Minister can be expressing governmental policy or if he is it is bad governmental policy; it is an un-Irish and an un-national policy. A nation can afford to be complacent about emigration if it has an excess in population. A man who weighs over 16 or 17 stone does not mind losing a little weight but a man who weighs less than a hundredweight must be worried about losing a few pounds' weight. In the same way a nation like ours with a population of less than 3,000,000 cannot be complacent in regard to emigration.

I happened to read an article written by a staff reporter of the Standard in a recent issue. He spoke of conditions in a place called Auchtermuchty. The place is in Scotland and he described the conditions of our emigrants, our Irish people, and I think that those conditions can only be described as appalling and reflecting discredit on our nation and on ourselves. He said that at one place in Fifeshire—he was referring to a statement made to him by a local priest who was working among our emigrants in Scotland— when he answered a sick call late one night, he found Irish boys and girls in an old shed. “They slept on straw and there was no privacy between the sexes save a few old pieces of sacking draped across a rope.” Those are the conditions which Irish people are forced to live in in other lands, those are the conditions which they are subjected to. When ex-Ministers and others talk about raising the prestige of our country I would like to ask them what kind of boost it gives to the prestige of our nation to see Irish people having to take the most lowly-paid and degrading work in Great Britain and elsewhere.

We have got to realise that until we build up a population in this country capable of developing the nation's resources fully, a population capable of strengthening this nation physically and economically, until we can do that, we cannot be complacent about emigration.

I would like to hear from the Minister at the conclusion of this debate a clear and definite statement that he will take strong, active and bold measures to hold our people in Ireland and for Ireland.

The Government, as I have said, commands a large measure of popular support in this country; they command the support of all sections of the people; they command the goodwill of all sections of the people. They have a great and difficult task to perform; they are entrusted with Government at the most difficult period of the nation's history; they have handed over to the people a bill for running this country so enormous as to be staggering. They have got to get down to the task with vigour, with sincerity and with determination, and, as far as possible, they must enforce economy in every Government Department. They must see that there is no waste, no overlapping, no officials who have no useful function to serve; they must see that extravagance and extreme generosity to friends is not permitted in any Government Department.

I do not think that the Government will be foolish enough, in their desire for economy or in their desire to make changes, to cut off any useful work that was initiated or undertaken by their predecessors. On the contrary, I think they will err rather on the side of giving every scheme that was promoted by their predecessors a fair trial. Any measure which has within it the seeds of ultimate success even if it may not succeed in the present year or in the next year should be given a fair trial. That applies to air transport, turf development and to other branches of national development. All those matters must be judged fairly and wisely. I am sure that no hasty decisions will be taken and that whatever changes it is found necessary to make will be made only after the most careful investigation. So many things in the entire administration of the outgoing Government have been extravagant and rotten and require to be reformed immediately that the Government have a big task before them. They have just the same task as that of a householder going into a house that has been mismanaged over a long period of years. There is a great deal of work to be done, clearing up and cleaning out. I am sure that that work will be undertaken. I think we can rely upon the prudence of experienced and patriotic men to see that no scheme is discarded which may have some ultimate use.

Cormac Ua Breisleáin

Tá cúpla focal le rá agam fá na Meastacháin seo.

Le seacht mbliana anuas bhí scéim maith againn i nGaeltacht Thír Chonaill agus i gceanntracha iargcúlta eile ar fud na tíre, scéim a bhí ina cúnamh mhór, ni amháin don Ghaeltacht ach don tír go léir. Tá mé ag tagairt do scéim bhaint na móna a bhí ar siúl againn anois le seacht mbliana. De thoradh na scéime sin coinníodh muinntir na tíre seo te nuair a bhí sé rí-dheachair orainn gual a fháil. Scéim a bhí inti a chuidigh go mór le mórán daoine sa Ghaeltacht slí bheatha a bhaint amach dóibh féin gan aon trácht a dhéanamh ar an mhaitheas a rinne sí do mhuintir na tíre i gcoitinne. Scéim a bhí inti fosta a choinnigh na céadta daoine ag obair ina dtír féin— daoine a mbeadh orthu dul go hAlbain nó go Sasana le a slí bheatha a bhaint amach ach gurb é go raibh an scéim sin ann.

Tá íontas mór orainn sa Ghaeltacht agus ní hamháin orainn ach ar chuile duine a chuir suim riamh sa Ghaeltacht, sa teangaidh agus i gcultúr na tíre go bhfuil an Rialtas anois chun deiridh a chur leis an scéim sin.

Tá cosúlacht idir an scéim sin agus scéim eile—scéim na dtithe gloine—in a raibh suim mhór ag cuid mhaith de mhuintir na Gaeltachta. Tá sé iontach againne go bhfuil an Rialtas i bhfáthach le hairgead a shabháil ar áiteana ina bhfuil sé riachtanach na daoine a choinneáil 'sa bhaile agus obair a thabhairt díobhtha.

'Sé mo thuairim nach bhfuil an Rialtas seo chun rud a dhéanamh ar son na Gaeltachta agus go bhfuil sé mar chuspóir acu muintir na Gaeltachta a chur go hAlbain nó go Sasana chun a slí bheatha a bhaint amach. Ba chóir do chuid de na Teachtaí atá in a suí i gcúl an Aire cuimhneamh anois ar an méid cainte a bhí acu i dtaobh na Gaeltachta agus i dtaobh an obair a bhí an Rialtas le déanamh ar son na Gaeltachta, agus ba chóir dóibh a rá linn anois cad é tá siad chun a dhéanamh le haghaidh na Gaeltachta in ionad na scéimeanna a chuir Rialtas Fianna Fáil ar bun.

Gearóid MacPharthaláin

Tá an scéal céanna agamsa agus atá ag mo chomrádaí an Teachta Cormac Ua Breisleáin.

'Sé an rud is measa dár thárla ó tháinig an Rialtas nua isteach agus a thárla le fada an lá ná deireadh a chur le tionscal na móna.

Ní raibh aon rud sa tír a rinne an oiread sin maitheasa do na dreamanna sin agus a rinne an scéim sin.

Cé nár mhaith linn go mbeadh achrann nó cogadh ar fud an domhan, ar an am gcéadna deirtear gur olc an gaoth nach séideann maith do dhream éigin agus sin mar a bhí an sgéal ag muintir na Gaeltachta i dtaobh móna. Tá a fhios againn go maith conas mar a bhí an scéal ag muintir Bhaile Atha Cliath agus muintir na mBailte móra ar fud na tíre go mór mhór anuraidh de thoradh ganntanas guail.

Tá a fhios againn go léir nach raibh, b'fhéidir, geimhreadh againn chomh cruaidh leis an ngeimhreadh a bhí againn anuraidh riamh agus mar sin, ní ceart deireadh a chur le scéim na móna i ngeall ar droch mhóin a bheith ann anuraidh. Admhaitear gurbh i an bhliain ba mheasa aimsire le fada an lá. Fágfaidh an scéal nua i dtaobh tionscal na móna muintir na Gaeltachta in ísligh brí

It is very difficult to find out what the social policy of the present Government is likely to be if we are to judge by the actions and the pronouncements to which we have been treated so far. I was very interested in the speeches which were made here to-day by some of the people who support the Government. Deputy Cowan, Deputy Hickey and even Deputy Cogan seemed to make speeches that would indicate that they are on the wrong side of the House. It is puzzling that they, holding the views which their speeches seem to indicate, should support the present Government. Deputy Cogan's last remark was that the present Government has a big job of clearing up to do. Well, as far as the western seaboard is concerned, the clearing out will commence now. Men who hitherto found good employment at home will now have to seek it elsewhere because there is no alternative employment in the offing for them.

While everybody recognises that the turf industry was not all that was to be desired from the national point of view, in any event it provided a very good safeguard. It was the sheet-anchor for the country during the worst period of the war. The stopping of it now at one fell stroke reminds me of the mistake the British Government made with regard to their own miners in the depressed period before the war. I think it is a case of throwing out the dirty water before the clean has been got in. I think that in this matter the Government, in spite of the necessity which it sees to retrench financially, should hasten slowly. I have the greatest sympathy with Deputy Hickey and Deputy Cowan when they state that finance should not be the yardstick by which everything is to be judged and that so-called economy should not be the objective or the end of the Government. The present Government seems to be dominated by Fine Gael. Fine Gael made a reduction in the cost of government the main plank in its programme at the election. But there was this note, in any event, in all the speeches of all the Parties and there was one thing about which the electorate who did not support Fianna Fáil were agreed. That was that all the Parties were satisfied that the same services could be given and that the cost of government could be reduced.

It is now painfully obvious that the people have been deceived in that belief and that the cost of government, if it is to come down, can only be brought down at the sacrifice of services of the first importance to the people. I know that as far as the west is concerned, the indication so far given by the attack on two industries—one the glasshouse industry and another of far greater importance, the turf industry—can produce nothing but black despair along the western seaboard. As a result of the decision announced—I do not know whether it is official or not but there was information in to-day's paper to indicate that it is to be the official policy of the Government to cut out the handwon turf industry at one stroke——

Minister for Finance (Mr. McGilligan)

Mr. Palmer

It seems to me to be the irony of fate that the justification for the imposition of these colossal taxes on this country should now be laid upon the shoulders of the Opposition. When the present Opposition came into power in 1932 they refused to accept responsibility for the Estimates that were then introduced. So, too, do we now refuse to accept responsibility for the colossal sum that will be imposed upon the people of this country under the forthcoming Budget.

A great deal of political capital has been made out of the turf scheme. I come from an area where the turf scheme was introduced on a large scale along the western seaboard of County Kerry. I would like to tell those Deputies who come from non-turf areas that in no sense was the turf scheme introduced for the welfare of the people as a whole in these particular areas. When the emergency arose supporters of Fianna Fáil endeavoured to make it appear in the minds of the people that it was Deputy de Valera who introduced this scheme for the purpose of giving employment. It was, of course, pure necessity that gave birth to the scheme. If any man is to be held responsible for it it should be laid to the credit of Herr Hitler, the man who started the war.

Mr. Killilea

The turf scheme was on before the war started.

Mr. Palmer

It was in existence on a small scale only. It was not introduced on a large scale until the emergency arose. Turf was sold locally. It was not sent to the cities and towns.

Mr. MacEntee

It was.

Mr. Killilea

Peat depots had been established.

Mr. Palmer

I understand that it is considered discourteous to interrupt a Deputy in his maiden speech.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is discourteous at any time.

Mr. Palmer

In the area from which I come, when the scheme was first introduced nobody would be given employment under it unless he joined a Fianna Fáil club. Up to the present time no man could become a charge-hand, or ganger, or an engineer unless he was a supporter of Fianna Fáil. The turf scheme seems to me to have been merely a vote-catching device for Fianna Fáil. It gave a certain sort of employment of a temporary nature. In the course of time vast numbers of our people emigrated and eventually force of circumstances compelled them to take in people with other affiliations under the scheme. But at all times the men in key positions were the followers of the Fianna Fáil Party.

There is nothing to boast about in connection with this scheme. The men were not well paid and the conditions of employment were not very pleasant. The men had to come long distances to work in these bogs because it was impossible to get sufficient local labour. There was no provision made for giving those men a midday meal. If the scheme were carried out in a proper way, there would have been some kind of huts or temporary shelters erected in the bogs for the comfort of the workers when having their lunch or when the weather was very severe. Provision could also have been made to supply some warm meals. Then, again, the hours were long. Anybody working in a turf area knows how very unpleasant it is to work in an open bleak place.

It is a pity, of course, that this employment should cease or partly cease. There is, however, one section of the people for whom I have great sympathy and I hope the Ministers responsible will look after their welfare before they come to a final decision in connection with this turf scheme. I refer to the private turf producers. With their families, those people went out into the bogs on their own land or they took banks of turf elsewhere. I know several people in South Kerry who employed up to 25 men to produce turf privately. I should like that to be continued as far as possible. I take it that with the development of arterial drainage and afforestation which may take place in future those who have been employed in this turf scheme will be absorbed into those schemes. In fact this turf scheme up to the present had become a sort of racket. Various people got into it and made huge profits and the people who suffered most were those who worked under miserable conditions in the bogs.

Deputies opposite profess a great deal of consideration for the Gaeltacht, and we heard the outbursts here in connection with the announcement about the Connemara glasshouses. There is an old proverb in connection with glasshouses and it would be well for Deputies opposite to remember it. For instance, when the grants for housing were increased there was no increase made in the grants to be given in the Gaeltacht; they forgot that. At a certain stage the people in the Gaeltacht, on holdings up to £4 valuation, were entitled to unemployment assistance. The previous Government cut that down to £2 valuation. It has now been increased again to £4 valuation. It does not matter who brought about that change which is for the welfare of the people of the Gaeltacht.

Then again in County Kerry we have fishermen who live solely by sea fishing. Prior to the Fianna Fáil regime, these fishermen were able to purchase boats and gear, at first without any deposit, then with 5 per cent. deposit, and later on with 10 per cent. deposit. But, under the Fianna Fáil Government, it has come to be a 50 per cent. deposit. That meant that once these men lost their boats or their gear they never again could purchase boats or gear. I hope that the Minister responsible will take this matter into consideration and that in the near future we shall come back to the old system of giving the fishermen loans for boats and gear for a 10 per cent. deposit to be paid back out of the proceeds of their fishing. I am proud to say that, so far as I know, in all the areas in my constituency where fishing is carried on along the coast all the moneys advanced on loan for the purchase of boats and gear have been fully repaid by the fishermen concerned. That should be an incentive to the Government to give them better terms so that they may be able to carry on their fishing under proper conditions.

In the Gaeltacht, and especially in the constituency I represent, there is a good deal of coast erosion. I know one area, extending from Milltown to Glenbeg, a distance of 20 odd miles, where in 1914, under the Congested Districts Board, earthen embankments were erected to prevent the inflow of the tide. That is a long time ago, and these embankments were not erected in a very satisfactory way. Several breaches have been made in these embankments. Only a few days ago I saw some of these and no attempt had been made by the last Government to repair these breaches. When the breaches were first made it would have taken only a small sum to repair them. Engineers were sent down to the district, especially before the general election. I know one particular place where there was a breach of about 100 yards. Engineers have gone there several times. A few days before the election three car loads of them arrived in order to make the people believe that everything would be made all right. Poor people living in these districts who have grass only for three or four cows have their lands flooded by the tide. In all about 100 families are affected in the area to which I refer. That is how the last Government treated those districts along the western seaboard.

The way that the bodies concerned with education were treated by the last Government is known to all Deputies. The shocking way in which the former Minister for Education treated the demands of the teachers will always be remembered by the members of the I.N.T.O. and the parents of the Dublin children. Money was spent in every way and yet, when it came to education, which is so important for the welfare of the children of the nation, there was no consideration for those who carried on that work. The Minister for Finance for the last Government boasted here in this House that the longer the teachers remained on strike the better, because his Department were saving a sum of £300,000 by not having to pay the teachers. That was a very mean attitude for the then Minister to take up. The Minister for Education, who should have supported the attitude of the teachers, sat silent all the time. He will always be remembered by the members of the I.N.T.O. as one of the most stubborn, pig-headed and highly inefficient Ministers for Education that this country has ever had or ever will have.

Nothing is being done with regard to schools. There are numbers of them quite uninhabitable. It is shocking to see their condition. I never knew how bad they were until, during the election campaign, I had occasion to visit them in various parts of Kerry. In the same old way engineers go along and inspect these old schools. Time after time representations have been made by managers, teachers and local bodies, yet nothing has been done. Some new schools have been erected. Perhaps they have been erected in areas where supporters of Fianna Fáil were in the majority.

Mr. O'Rourke

You are contemptible.

Mr. Palmer

I know that vocational schools have been built—palatial buildings. They seem to have got all the consideration. If you look up the numbers attending them, it is really strange that they should have received such consideration, whereas the primary schools have not been considered at all. These vocational schools have not been built in the proper areas. Instead of building them in cities and towns they should have been built in the wide open spaces and provision should have been made to acquire a certain amount of land so that agricultural subjects could be taught to the pupils who would attend these schools. At a time when the flight from the land is so serious, that might form some inducement to our young people to come to love nature and to settle down on the land, to till it and produce the crops that we require for the welfare of our people.

It should be realised that children in rural areas have not many opportunities for a higher education and it would be well to consider that there should be some type of higher primary school with teachers who would teach special subjects until the children would reach 16 years of age. After that they could pass on to vocational or technical schools, one of which should be in every parish. In that way you will educate our people fully. If you want to secure the revival of Irish, of which the last Taoiseach was so much in favour and about which he spoke so frequently when people would expect him to speak about material things, there would be a wonderful opportunity of reviving it and making it the spoken language of the State.

References have been made to airlines to America, and other airlines, too. The question has been asked, why the new line to America was not opened up with, I suppose, all the pomp and splendour that would satisfy the vanity of the last Taoiseach. Evidently he meant to open up the line to coincide with the celebrations in America on St. Patrick's day. He has gone to America, but not at the expense of the over-taxed people of this country. He had to pay his own fare, though at any time we would be quite willing to give him a single fare across to the United States.

Aer Lingus has been mentioned here. Last year there was a loss of something like £132,000 on that company. All that money had to be met by our taxpayers. There are other airlines which are being run at a great loss, but the late Government, if they had had the opportunity, were prepared to open up a further service and incur vastly greater losses than have been incurred by the lines in operation. One wonders what we can do. Five big Constellation passenger planes were purchased by the last Government. That meant an immense loss to our taxpayers.

I was thinking the other day, when I was walking through the park and I saw vast mounds in front of me, that I was walking towards the pyramids of Egypt. I discovered that the mounds were composed of the dust of turf and of American coal—all the rotten turf that was dumped in the park and not protected from the weather. It was again the result of inefficiency on the part of the last Government. Indeed, I was thinking that some of the Constellations might be used to carry away that dust and dump it into the Atlantic. I would place the Ministers of the last Government as pilots and get them to shovel the dust in and out as some punishment for their inefficiency.

A great deal has been said about agriculture and as to what should be done to bring about prosperity for the farmers. The farmers were very prosperous when the last Government took over control. I heard Deputies opposite stating that when Fianna Fáil took office there were very few of our present social services. That is quite true, and the reason is that at that time they were not required. I remember the farmers in 1931; they were prosperous and there was scarcely any unemployment. The farmers were then able to sell their cattle at a profitable price and they could support their families in comfort. It was only when Fianna Fáil came into power and started the economic war that agriculture went down and our young men and women began to fly from the country. During the past 16 years 250,000 of our young people have left our country. It is rather remarkable that it was under a Fianna Fáil Government all that emigration took place.

A great deal has been said about agricultural production. I will suggest something in connection with agriculture and perhaps the Minister will consider it. I read an article recently about farming in Canada. It has been suggested that a great deal has been done for the prosperity of the farmers in the wheat-producing, barley-producing and beet-producing areas. Where I come from there are mountain farms. The people live by rearing cattle and sheep in the mountains. They are really industrious farmers and they are the farmers who suffer most during severe winters.

In Canada, where they have severe frosts and snow during the winter, they have a system of insurance for farmers against losses. I am not going to go into details, but I think that system would be worth looking into. It would be better, I think, than the issuing of loans free of interest to farmers to recoup them for their losses. It would be well, I think, if we had some kind of State insurance through which farmers, especially our mountain farmers, for whom I speak, would be recompensed for the losses they may suffer during severe weather, or through disease afflicting their flocks and herds.

I think I heard a Fianna Fáil Deputy say that in order to reduce the cost of living we would have to increase taxation. Any ordinary man should know that every time you increase taxation you increase the cost of living. We on this side of the House hope to reduce taxation by wise economy and at the same time not to cut down any of our social services. In fact, it is our object to increase them. I am not speaking officially, but the desire of the members of our Party is to increase the social services. I would recommend the Minister responsible to stop the system in operation whereby the old age pensioners get the extra half-crown through the home assistance officer. That would seem to create the idea that they are being treated as paupers and is entirely wrong. I cannot see why the payment of this extra half-crown should be left in the hands of the home assistance officers. Why not pay the full amount at the post office? In all these cases there was a sort of political tinge. Old age pensioners who did not vote as the late Government wanted them were very often refused that extra half-crown. I know that. On the whole, we have nothing to fear from anything that has been said by the Minister here in our endeavour to bring down taxation. I hope that by wise legislation in the future and good government we shall make these Twenty-Six Counties such a happy country as to entice our brothers in the North to come in here. I hope that before we pass away we shall see all our people, North and South, happy and prosperous in a free and united Ireland.

Deputy Desmond rose.

An Ceann Comhairle

Did not the Deputy intervene in this debate already?

Mr. Desmond

Yes.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is the same debate, but you are entitled, being in Committee, to speak. If, however, that procedure were followed it would be a rather lengthy discussion. It is not usual for a Deputy to speak a second time.

Mr. Desmond

I only wanted to speak in connection with certain statements that were made.

Mr. Killilea

It strikes me that all the Deputies on the opposite side of the House are just making a feeble effort, more or less, to elaborate the statement that they dare not share any responsibility for the particular Estimates we are discussing. I understood from the speeches that I listened to from each Party during the election that they had a plan in their pocket, and that immediately the Dáil met they would produce it and reduce expenditure straight away. It does not seem to be forthcoming. As I listened to Deputy Palmer, I formed a very poor opinion of the mentality of the people of Kerry—that they should elect a Deputy who is capable of making such untruthful statements as he has made. First of all, he criticised turf production. He opened his statement by referring to the Taoiseach in the last Government in starting peat production.

Mr. Palmer

To get votes.

Mr. Killilea

That, of course, is not so, as everybody in this House who is prepared to look up the facts in connection with peat production fully realises. The peat societies were started by the previous Government many years before the war started. I am sure that happened in Kerry as well as in Galway and in other counties where turf was to be had. Not only were the peat societies started but turf-cutting competitions were in existence in Kildare and elsewhere prior to the outbreak of war in an honest effort by the past Government to try to prepare for what they saw was coming.

The past Government had to fight against many things in this House. They had to fight against elements sitting on the benches at the opposite side now. Fine Gael with a lot of the back benchers that they have got behind them tried to kill our wheat policy, our beet policy, and our turf policy. Now they come along, because these schemes were successful in providing the people with the necessities of life, and try to cast slurs on the men who had the foresight to see that provision would be made for any emergency that might arise if war broke out.

Captain Cowan

Was not the beet scheme a white elephant?

Mr. Moran

Not according to the present Minister for Agriculture.

Mr. MacEntee

Carlow beet factory was, but we made it work.

Mr. Killilea

So far as the beet policy is concerned, I wonder is the Deputy any more fully acquainted with the facts, or is he any more enlightened than Deputy McQuillan was last night when he made certain statements that I shall deal with later.

Captain Cowan

I am sure there are other people who will be equally delighted to listen to the Deputy, if we find there is anything like a bit of intelligence at the back of it. That remains to be told. Anyhow, we are eagerly and anxiously awaiting all these great things we have heard of.

I know the past does not suit some of the Deputies on the opposite side, as their past is a nasty one. It is a reflection to make these statements about council engineers, and they should be withdrawn by the Deputy who made them. That was not the case and, anyhow, it was never the policy of Fianna Fáil to insist on it. Statements have also been made about the flight from the land. If the employment was there, how is it that there is this flight from the land? All this goes to show how foolish and silly are the statements made by irresponsible individuals.

Mr. Kyne

The last speaker, in accusing us of falsehoods, suggested that we of the Labour Party had been bought by certain promises. In my first speech in this House this evening, I am anxious to state that we owe no allegiance to anybody but the ordinary working people of this country. We will accept from Fianna Fáil, from Fine Gael, Clann na Poblachta, Clann na Talmhan or Independents, any scheme that is in the interest of the ordinary plain people. In the Estimates, if money is to be provided for the old age pensions, for the blind or the ill, we are in agreement with it, no matter how hard the taxation comes upon the people. We will do what Deputy Lemass suggested yesterday we would not have the courage to do: when we find in the Civil Service that there are people paid for doing nothing, we in the Labour Party will be quite agreeable that those people be dismissed. We are not afraid to accept the responsibility that comes with taking part in the Government. If the Minister for Finance can establish economies and, while doing so, run this country in a good and fair way, we of the Labour Party will be proud to be part of that Government.

I would say this, for the benefit of the people on my left, that in my constituency of Waterford there is a dump of fuel, 23,000 tons of bad turf and 20,000 tons of timber, that would not even be taken away by the people if it were given for nothing. The State will also have to provide the finances to cart it to the homes of the people. We in my Party do not believe in spending money to keep people employed in useless employment. There is work for all the workers of this country—useful and productive work. That is all I wish to say this evening.

Mr. Davern

When I came into this House, I received a few shocks. My first was when the ex-Minister for Industry and Commerce—who many years ago had the audacity to state publicly that it was not the duty of the Government to provide work for the unemployed—became Minister for Finance. Apparently, his political mission of revenge on those who opposed him then, falls on the men and women of Connemara first and then on the bog workers and on the miners and poor people of this country. That is a nice state of affairs for my friends on the right to be associated with. No more turf schemes! Let us ask the Minister what is going to happen to the 15,000 people who were employed on the turf schemes. They are the poorest of the poor just as are the people of the Gaeltacht who are denied, or who are going to be denied in the future, a further glass-house scheme to provide them with a meagre existence. What is going to happen to the people who are producing turf in this country? It is strange indeed that the first act of political revenge must be against the poorest of the poor. Perhaps sanity on the part of those who contribute to the Fine Gael Government which is in office now might urge them in their charity perhaps to refrain from voting for this terrible act of vengeance.

"It is not the duty of a Government to provide work for the unemployed." Is that going to be the dictum of the present Government? It appears to me to be very like it.

Again, we hear that the men who manned the Bearna Baoil in the dangerous days that are past are now going to be thrown away on the scrap heap. Is that another act of vengeance on the part of the members of this Fine Gael Government? Why? Perhaps, in the words of one of the leaders of Clann na Poblachta, they would like to see the Army scrapped, as then the way would be clear for a dictatorship.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

We have abolished it.

Mr. Davern

I will prove it, and if you so desire I will quote the name of the Clann na Poblachta leader in Tipperary who told me that once they had got rid of the Army as it is at present constituted there would be no trouble in setting up a dictatorship.

Captain Cowan

Is he a Deputy?

Mr. Davern

He is not a member of this House, but he is one of the leaders of Clann na Poblachta in Tipperary. Perhaps that is the reason why the Army is to be scrapped. May I remind——

Mr. C. Lehane

One of the leaders you got to write to the Irish Press?

Mr. Davern

Deputy Lehane will have his chance to reply to me. In answer to Deputy Lehane, he might be one of the people high up in the list of war criminals which I believe it is proposed to set up when they find themselves secure enough to do so.

May I remind the Deputies here who propose to vote for retrenchment in the Army Vote of what the officers, N.C.O.s and men of the Army have been responsible for? During the troubled period they worked for as long as 20 hours a day to make sure that this country would be safe from invasion.

Captain Cowan

And for over 25 years.

Mr. Davern

During that period they worked, as I have said, for 20 hours a day to train the young men of the country and by reason of the fact that they did train the young men of the country we were safe from invasion and we need not thank some of the men who are now part of this Fine Gael Government.

Now may I appeal to the Deputies that the victims of this act of vengeance, as I believe it to be, will not be the men who worked on the bog, the men who produced fuel for us when we were in need of it when the country was faced with a fuel famine, nor the men who worked for us when the country was faced with invasion. Surely it is not the desire of this House that the men who stood in the Bearna Baoil should be the first to be put on the scrap heap.

Mr. C. Lehane

I do not propose, a Chinn Chomhairle, to follow Deputies Davern and Killilea up the bypaths of personal criticism which seem to appeal to them so much. I am not going to take up the time of the House, a Chinn Chomhairle, by a desultory journey from the top to the bottom of these Estimates. I will be brief, but I would like to make one appeal to the Government. It is this, that in their policy with regard to the spending of public money a spirit should inform their every act which will take cognisance of the necessity for having regard to the principle that the first duty of a Government is the care of those who are least able to take care of themselves.

I am surprised that throughout the course of this long debate there was nothing but a passing reference made to an emergency which confronts this country and which confronts in particular the people living in the urban areas to-day. I refer to the housing conditions under which so many of our people are living. I represent a constituency in which almost 20,000 human beings are living in conditions unfit for human habitation. That, I submit, a Chinn Chomhairle, is an emergency and I would make as urgent an appeal as I can to the Government to regard it as an emergency and to approach it as one would an emergency.

We would not accept it from you, anyhow.

Mr. Lehane

There way talk about a mandate. We got it and we fulfilled it.

Mr. MacEntee

And you put Fine Gael in.

Mr. McAuliffe

You are out, anyway. That is certain, and it is a good job for the country.

Mr. Butler

I just want to say a word on the subject of education. We had that lamentable teachers' strike. I do not think that the hardships and the losses inflicted on the children of this city——

A Deputy

Do not be ashamed. Tell us all about it.

I do think myself— indeed, I fear—that the present Government will fight a delaying action in this whole matter. They will probably establish a council of education.

Mr. Connolly

There is no Minister talking now.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy MacEntee is in possession.

Mr. MacEntee

I know that Deputy Connolly admires the Irish Independent.

Mr. Connolly

He does not admire the Irish Independent, nor does he admire Deputy MacEntee rattling the bones of the dead in order to give life to the Fianna Fáil Party.

Mr. Davern

The Irish Independent is not dead, unfortunately.

Mr. MacEntee

I was asked by the Minister for Finance to quote the words of his colleague and I am quoting from the Irish Press of the 4th March this year:

What is the word?

Mr. MacEntee

——some justification for evading the constitutional doctrine——

And about time.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again to-morrow.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 10 Mar 1948