I understood a new index was to be prepared, that the Government now in office had promised to introduce a more satisfactory index based on present conditions. As has been pointed out from these benches, if you take the simple working class or any other type of family on the existing index, I think it would not require a great deal of research to see that the result which will be secured may not be at all the same as if you were to take the weekly household budgets of families as they actually stand. Undoubtedly, due to the more plentiful supplies of commodities, people have more opportunities for spending, but I think it will be generally agreed that when they go to buy, prices are very often beyond their reach. We spend a huge amount of money on the prevention of disease, on the erection of sanatoria and on schemes to cure disease but one of the greatest ways in which to prevent disease, I should say, is to see that the population is provided with adequate nutrition. During the survey which was made some years ago of nutritional standards in the City of Dublin the general conclusion reached by those who examined the question in the case of the lower-income and lower-expenditure groups of the people—only sample cases, of course, could be examined— was that the diet was monotonous and that there was a great lack of variety. In respect of those who were on the lowest level and who would be normally catered for because for one reason or another they would not be in employment—they might be invalids, they might be widows or they might be people of other types who would not be in normal employment; being in the lowest level of income, we know that their income was largely dependent on assistance from the social services— this survey found that in respect of this particular class of people meat expenditure reached nearly one-third of their weekly income. If you add in whatever fats they may be able to secure for themselves, the proportion of the total expenditure on food would be about two-fifths on meat and fats. Of course, in artisans' homes the proportion would be smaller, as there would be a wage income, but nevertheless I think it is agreed by everybody conversant with conditions, not alone in Dublin but conditions in the country, that it is almost impossible to purchase meat at present prices, at any rate, to the extent that such households require.
When the housewife turns to bacon as a substitute, she finds there is an increase there also. If she goes to look for vegetables she finds that they are either unobtainable or the prices are simply out of all proportion. It is no wonder, therefore, quite apart from the situation that has arisen through the announcement by the trade union congresses, that they propose to terminate the existing wages agreements, that there should be great dissatisfaction with regard to the present high level of prices. The spokesmen of these unions charge that this situation is due to the exorbitant rate of profits. I do not know whether that can be the case. I think the Minister on one occasion assured the grocers that he was satisfied they were not making exorbitant profits. In any case, when the Minister for Finance was on these benches—and I think I cannot entirely acquit the Minister for Industry and Commerce—he charged his predecessors with failure to take action to cope with the exorbitant profits which they alleged were made, particularly in the distributive business; we were also charged with failure to provide what the Tánaiste described in his election address as an "efficient and effective system of price control". Of course, all that seems to have gone by the board now, and it is rather unfortunate for Deputy Davin that the matter should have been raised at this particular juncture. Had it been merely raised on these benches, I am sure we would have been told that there was no foundation for the allegations that there was dissatisfaction with the present high prices and the unreasonable cost of living. But Deputy Davin seemed anxious to retreat to-day from the position he so very foolishly got himself into yesterday when he suggested, in face of the public statements of responsible trade union spokesmen, that, in fact, the compensation that has been granted to meet the increased cost of living more than fully compensates for the increased costs.
With regard to industrial policy, we have been reminded by those on whose generosity we are to a certain extent dependent in present circumstances that in the long run our community must live and find its standard of living and its prosperity on what it produces itself. On what we produce ourselves, we have not alone to provide that standard of living but, if we borrow, irrespective of whether we repay in devalued pounds or dollars or pay our own investors here at home who may invest in capital development projects, we have to pay for these things. As the Minister for Finance stated in the many references in his Budget statement with relation to this question of a capital investment programme, it should be our object to endeavour to provide the necessary investment funds and the necessary financing from current savings. He also referred in his Budget speech to the importance, firstly, of increasing output and, secondly, of increasing savings. On either of these two corollaries the Minister had grave misgivings as to whether the policy could be effective in improving conditions. He gave many instances of the deleterious results which might ensue if a big capital programme were developed under inflationary conditions while savings and output did not substantially increase. While we have received a good deal of valuable information from the Minister in his opening statement, we have not received particulars of what I consider the keystone of our appreciation of the improvement in industrial output and improvement in our general economy; I refer to the output per man.
References have been made at various times to the necessity for keeping a close eye on that aspect of our development; and in the demands which the Trade Union Congress are now about to make for a review of the wage agreements there is no doubt that this question of the increased productivity of the workers must assume an important place. I think it is essential, therefore, that we should have some figures. I know it is difficult for the statistical bureau to produce all the figures that are required but, in the long run, the basic elements in the examination of any programme of capital development are the productivity of the units concerned and the return on the investment made. There is obviously a limit to the amount that can be invested. As has been pointed out frequently in recent debates, when one borrows money one must pay for it. We are paying for borrowed moneys at a rapidly increasing rate. Fortunately, there is a limit to the amount that can be borrowed, no matter how enthusiastic we may feel about the projects we have in mind. Some years before the war the former Government called in experts to examine this question of investment, banking and finance, and those experts came to certain conclusions. Now, we did not agree with their conclusions, particularly in respect of the repatriation of sterling assets. We felt then, as we feel now, that if these moneys can be employed more profitably at home and give a reasonable prospect of a return, while incidentally providing valuable employment or increasing our productive power, a strong case can be made for it; but I suggest that a distinction must be made, as was in fact made by those experts, between the projects in respect of which there is a reasonable prospect of a return and those enterprises which go some way to pay for their original cost and those in which there is no such prospect whatsoever. If there is a limit to borrowing, even for productive schemes and to what one can physically do irrespective of how great one's plans may be, there obviously must be a limit also to the amounts that one will borrow for projects in respect of which there will be no return of the nature I have mentioned. It is because we recognise that in the long run one has to pay for moneys that one borrows and because there must be a determination as between particular types of enterprise on social grounds or profitable grounds, or otherwise, we think that a strong priority must be given now to those projects which are likely to repay to some extent the capital invested in them. After that there is another type of project, such as Aer Lingus, which is somewhat experimental and involves a very large capital expenditure; in the hazards of the present-day world it may encounter sharp losses over a period due to circumstances outside our control. But, as the Minister has pointed out, even in that venture, which might have been described as somewhat risky when it was first established, great headway is being made.
Although at the moment it is not able to pay its way completely it is very satisfactory that the losses have been so substantially reduced. The Minister has referred to the charge on the company—the heavy contributions in respect of the superannuation scheme. I have no objection whatever to the scheme but, as a matter of information, I should like the Minister to tell us, when he is replying, what exactly is the size of the contribution, having regard to the total income or profits of the concern. They have had proposals in England from time to time for what they call full employment. I am sure there are Parties on the Government Benches that are fully anxious, as indeed we all are, to carry such a policy into full and effective operation if it is possible to do so. Senator Professor George O'Brien pointed out in Studies in 1945 that Sir William Beveridge, as he then was, laid it down that even in regard to a policy of full employment, as against slumps and depressions, the Government should avoid borrowing for the purpose. Two reasons were given by the author of the scheme, apparently, against that. The first was that you were creating a rentier class which would have to be paid interest although not adding, except by investment, to the productivity of the State. You would have a rentier class drawing a very heavy income. As I said on the Budget, if you were to carry the policy to disproportionate extremes, you would find that a very heavy mortgage was now being placed on the future to pay that class. The second reason was very interesting. It was that if a Government could have recourse to borrowing for the provision of public works and for the financing of a programme of full employment, obviously, being politically minded, the Government might be tempted to indulge rather more than it should in borrowing—perhaps to the disadvantage of the national credit.
Obviously, if money can be raised and the Government is not going to raise it in the way in which it normally is being raised, by taxation, there will be an inclination to go further—I think that, with political pressure, that is obviously going to be the case—than they otherwise would go. As Sir William Beveridge pointed out, there will be the danger that it is rather the political interest of the moment that may be the motive rather than the national interest in the long run. Therefore, I think we are right to be wary and cautious of pursuing a policy of borrowing on a gigantic scale. So long as we are satisfied that a good return is being given and that the projects in which money is being invested will give good employment and add to the productive wealth of the country and enable us to pay our way as a nation, there is everything to be said for it. In Great Britain we have this policy associated with an extreme degree of planning. It seems to me that one of the arguments against very extensive State planning in regard to industry is that the private entrepreneur or industrialist is placed at a serious disadvantage. The whole weight of the power of the State is thrown into the State-controlled or semi-State-controlled enterprises and there is a tendency, as we know, in modern States to extend the scope of State control until it interferes to the extent of directing people in their daily lives—what occupation they should follow, where they should give their labour, and so forth.
With regard to the official British Government White Paper dealing with employment policy I would point out that we have not yet seen how this economy that is being built up on a basis of planning will stand when the new competitors that are appearing after the war will contest in the world field with Britain—but at any rate the British Labour Government were not unmindful of the difficulties and dangers of this policy, the difficulties and dangers that might ensue if it were not carried out with prudence and care. They pointed to the fact that the handling of such a problem and the way in which the financing of it is dealt with is regarded outside the country as a test of the firmness and efficiency of Government policy. Whether we like it or not, our credit will be affected by the opinion outsiders have of us. If they see us taking the easy road and refusing to meet our obligations as they occur by deferring more than is necessary the payment of debts to the future they will come to conclusions that are apt to be unfavourable. The second calculation that the British Labour Government made was that continual progress in technical efficiency was the dominating factor in determining the growth of real national income. Therefore whatever the scheme may be it was recognised in Britain, and to a lesser extent it applies to us here, that if we are going to maintain our position in the world, to secure a higher standard of living for our people, and hold our own wherever we have to meet competition, we shall also have to give greater attention to the problems of higher technical efficiency. Therefore, since the Government now have at their disposal means for providing such efficiency and training in modern technology and more modern scientific methods, I think the fullest possible use should be made of it.
I referred last year to the question of apprenticeship and pointed out to the Minister that in Great Britain it had been found that general national schemes of apprenticeship were found to work more satisfactorily, having regard to industrial conditions. The system of apprenticeship we have here, and the Act, has met with only a moderate degree of success, and it applies only to a limited number of trades. I have often wondered whether, in fact, there is not an opportunity, with the goodwill of the labour unions on the one side and of the employers on the other, of getting a scheme that will be more adequate and that will mean that young entrants to industry will be far better equipped and will have the advantage of going in to spend their lives in industry not having been trained in out-of-fashion methods, but having had the opportunity of seeing the latest machines and the latest methods. To the extent that the Ministry is in a position to enable teachers or executives or working men to go and see what is being done elsewhere, I think it will be all to the good. Undoubtedly, in order to secure an improvement in efficiency, the co-operation of all those concerned in industry is required.
Our adverse balance of trade is running very high at the present time. According to the Taoiseach, I think I am correct in saying that he has given it as his opinion that the only way in which the unsatisfactory position, as he finds it, of the present accumulation of sterling assets can be remedied is by larger imports. If these imports are confined very largely to goods, such as machinery, they will help to produce in time goods in the nature of capital equipment. That would be all to the good. Obviously, if we are importing consumption goods and, at the same time, trying to build up our own industries, then we are trying to do something that is very difficult. No matter what the expenditure may be by the public on consumer goods, it will be impossible I think for them to buy the complete output of our own industries, and at the same time finance the purchase of very large stocks of consumption goods from elsewhere. As regards the policy of bringing back your assets, if the assets have to be brought back in the form of goods that may have a disadvantage if they are not the right type of goods which will in the long run produce more wealth. If they are goods which are immediately consumed, they will have the further disadvantage of making things more difficult for our existing Irish industries.
