I drafted this motion immediately after the proposals of the Central Bank had been published and submitted to this House. I drafted it in the hope that the Government would have found it possible to accept the motion, if not as a whole at least in part. That is why the resolution is presented in a number of separate parts, so as to make it possible for the Government to indicate that it would accept some parts of it. At the time that the Central Bank Report was published and submitted to this House, the attitude of the Government seemed to be somewhat undecided. As I understood the attitude of the Minister for Finance, he accepted the views contained in the report and the recommendations contained in the report. On the other hand, as I understood the attitude of the Tánaiste, he rejected the report and said that it was not going to be hung around his neck. Many months have now passed by since the report was published and since the House discussed this report. We are now in a position to judge the extent to which the report has been accepted and acted upon by the Government. It is quite clear, on retrospective examination of the Central Bank Report, that its main recommendations have been acted upon by the Government and have been accepted.
In my view, this report and this resolution raise matters of grave constitutional importance. It appears to me that the Central Bank, in that report, usurped or attempted to usurp the functions of the Government appointed by this House, and sought to dictate policy to the country. They are not authorised by the Currency Act, under which they are entitled to make this report, to enter into the political field. The report contains proposals which are clearly of a political nature. It contains proposals which, in my view, are contrary to the national interest. We are entitled to know by what authority this conclave of bankers and civil servants is entitled to attempt to dictate policy to the Government, to this House and to the nation.
The House will remember the broad outline of the report. I think it is well I should underline certain aspects of it. The report sought in the first instance to depict the economy of this State as being in a dangerous condition. It repeatedly dealt with the question of what was termed inflation, which seems to be one of the favourite expressions of a particular school of economists who, apparently, are in a position to influence the policy of the Government. It then went on to advocate the reduction or the removal of food subsidies. That advice has been at least in part accepted by the Government and implemented by the Government, because the food subsidies were removed at least in part. It advocated the restriction of bank credits. That advice has already been acted upon by the banking system with either the direct or indirect connivance of the Government. It advocated the imposition of additional taxation if possible on consumer goods, so that additional taxation would have the effect of reducing the consumption of consumer goods by the people. That advice has been acted upon.
It also advocated what, to my mind, is one of the most dastardly and sinister lines of policy that any responsible economist could advocate in this country. It advocated the curtailment of public works on account of what it called "the unusually favourable state of employment" in the country. In other words, the report advocated the creation of a pool of unemployment, advocated the creation of conditions that must inevitably lead to increased emigration. It is seldom that those views are put in black and white by any responsible person. Probably the nakedness with which those who framed that report, those who submitted a report of that kind to the Government, to the House and to the people, expressed those views, is in itself sufficient condemnation of their ineptitude.
In dealing with public works, the Central Bank in its report said, and I quote:
"In view of the unusually favourable state of employment for a considerable time past, there is the less need at present for the artificial stimuli provided by such a programme, especially as prevailing high costs cause it to encroach rapidly on resources which may be badly needed at a later time when conditions afford more justification for this expedient."
The report then went on to point out that public works imposed a strain on the balance of payments, and then: "They have, for example, entailed the immediate import of materials and equipment." Of course, the building of houses, the building of factories, any public works programme, any capital investment programme, will involve the import of raw materials. Then they go on, and I would like the House to pay particular attention to the next sentence: "They have (that is, the public works) through their labour content created a demand for imported as well as other consumer goods." Because housing, because public works have a labour content, they are to be stopped. That is the advice which is given to the Government by this conclave of bankers, advice which the Government possibly did not accept openly, but advice which the Government has certainly helped to implement. The result is, of course, that unemployment has risen. The result is, of course, that emigration has increased.
I have not seen the report which the Central Bank propose to issue this year. Presumably it will be made available in the near future. I do not know to what extent they expressed satisfaction with the results which they have been able to achieve so far in regard to unemployment; whether they were in a position to congratulate themselves that they have been able to create a pool of unemployment in the country, that they have been able to increase the rate of emigration, that they have been able to reduce the purchasing power of the people and the standard of living of the people.
It is no longer a technical report by economists or by civil servants. This is an entrance by these people into the political arena. If they want to come into the political arena, let them come out in the open; let them stand for election and come into this House; let them tell the people what their policy is. The only authority given to them by Statute is to present an annual report of their proceedings to this House. I need not seek to define what the word "proceedings" means. This House has knowledge of it in its own procedure. The House keeps a journal of its proceedings in which it records main decisions, what it does, and so on. It would be a strange thing if, under cover of publishing a report of its proceedings to this House, the Clerk of this House were to start expressing views on the various political issues that came before the House or that faced the country.
While these gentlemen are not slow, apparently, to enlarge upon their functions by publishing documents of this nature, they are reluctant, apparently, to give more factual information concerning their proceedings. We do not know from this report how often they meet, what they do at their meetings. We know very little about the business they actually transact. True, they publish an annual statement of account, which they are bound to publish.
The last one was made available to this House two days ago. Although it is dated 8th April, 1952, it was only laid on the Table of this House on the 5th November of this year. There is no explanation as to the long delay that took place. It was submitted to the Auditor General and was signed by him on the 6th June, 1952. What happened this statement of account since 6th June, 1952, I do not know. But it is an interesting document, little publicised; we have not seen any note of it in the papers yet. It does not contain very much information but the information which it does contain is well worthy of notice. We learn from it that the expenses of this institution have more than doubled.
