Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 12 Mar 1958

Vol. 166 No. 1

Committee on Finance. - Motion by the Minister for Finance (Resumed).

Minister for Defence (Mr. K. Boland)

I was dealing with some of the points raised by Deputy Sweetman in speaking on the Vote on Account. I had dealt with his allegation in connection with the ground limestone and I had shown that, in actual fact, there was an increase in the amount contributed by the Exchequer this year towards the subsidisation of that scheme.

Deputy Sweetman went on to refer to wheat. It might be considered amusing by some people to hear Deputy Sweetman or any other Fine Gael Deputy advocating the growth of wheat when everybody knows the record of the Fine Gael Party in respect of the growing of wheat. They had, as their Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Dillon, a man who, throughout all the time when Fianna Fáil was trying to make this country produce as much home-grown wheat as it required for its own use, was a bitter opponent of the growing of any wheat whatever in this country. There is hardly any need for me to remind Deputy Sweetman of Deputy Dillon's oft-expressed hope that he would live to see the day when not alone wheat, but also peat and beet, would go "up the spout". I want to remind him that he was wont to declare that he would not insult his land by growing wheat on it and that he would not be found dead in a field of wheat.

I think it is a great piece of effrontery now for Deputy Sweetman to adopt the role of defender of wheat-growing, in view of the record of his Party in regard to growing wheat at all. If the actions of this Government in regard to meeting the loss on the disposal of surplus wheat are as disastrous as Deputy Sweetman would have us believe, surely he should only be pleased about that, judging by the policy of his Party in the matter. If these actions have the effect of making everybody go out of wheat production would that not be getting back to the state in which we were when Deputy Sweetman's Party under its then name of Cumann na nGaedheal were in control here? Would not that be getting the country——

Mr. Sweetman

This is the objective speech the Minister promised us!

Mr. K. Boland

——back to the position in which the Fine Gael Party tried to keep it and from which the advance was so strenuously opposed by them? Fianna Fáil's policy has been to get sufficient wheat grown to meet our requirements——

Mr. Blowick

That is not true.

Mr. K. Boland

That has always been our policy; we never aimed at having a surplus of wheat for export. The fact is that in these Estimates there is an increase in the provision to meet losses on the disposal of surplus wheat; £650,000 more has been provided this year. If there is increased production there will be a slight reduction in the price for wheat——

Mr. O'Sullivan

That is not what the Minister said in Nenagh.

Mr. K. Boland

——and that is due to the fact that we are now producing more wheat than is required here for our own needs. The national income will not support the taxation that would be necessary to raise sufficient money to give the full price for an unlimited quantity of wheat. I do not blame anybody who is a wheat producer for trying to get the highest possible price for it, but with the increased yields now being obtained it is obvious that the present price is reasonably remunerative.

Deputy Sweetman referred to the meeting at Nenagh which I attended and at which there were motions seeking an increase in the amount of money provided to meet wheat losses. The delegates at the convention who put in these motions were themselves people interested in the question and they made a very creditable case to secure increased remuneration for wheat growing. I did not blame them for that; I merely had to explain to them that it was not possible to provide sufficient money to give the same price for wheat which would have to be either exported or used for animal feed as for the wheat to be used to make flour for the production of bread.

The same thing applies to bacon. Again Deputy Sweetman attempted to convey the impression that there had been a reduction in the amount provided to support the price for bacon. Actually the position is that, due to circumstances outside our control, the price that can be obtained for exported bacon has dropped and if the Exchequer were to provide sufficient money to maintain the price paid to producers at what it was it would impose a burden on the Exchequer which could not be sustained by our economy. But in spite of the difficult financial circumstances which are still with us after the Coalition's period of office, we have provided an increased amount for this purpose, an increase of £580,000 for subsidising exports of surplus bacon.

Deputy Sweetman also attempted to convey the impression that the Government had effected a reduction in the price of barley. In fact, feeding barley is only a small proportion of the total grown and in the case of barley grown for malting, the price is fixed between the maltsters and the growers. The price of feeding barley has to be considered in conjunction with the bacon industry, since barley is one of the essential constituents in that industry.

Again in connection with milk, there is an increase of £734,000 in the butter subsidy. We in Fianna Fáil fully realise the importance of the dairying industry, that it is the basis of the cattle trade, and we did not want to do anything which would adversely affect that industry, but it appears that there may be a very large surplus of butter and although there is this increased provision it may mean there will be a reduction in price, but certainly we have gone as far as possible under existing financial circumstances in providing this sum for the butter subsidy. I think it is a generally accepted principle that, if there are increased yields, usually a small reduction in the rate payable can be absorbed and there can still be increased total income. I should like to see the same prices even when yields go up but it was not possible to provide sufficient money to do that on this occasion.

Deputy Sweetman attempted to convey the impression that during the election campaign Fianna Fáil had made a specific promise to remove each and every one of the special import levies which he imposed in 1956. We did not undertake to abolish these levies. The complaint that we did make about them was that they had been imposed in an indiscriminate way, in such a way as to have an immediate adverse effect on employment. When we came into office we removed some of these import levies and reduced others. We did that in respect of those particular items where the levy had the most serious and most direct adverse effect on employment. By doing that we gave a much needed stimulus to trade and industry.

Deputy Sweetman went on to refer to motions which were down for discussion at that meeting in Nenagh in connection with unemployment. Here again Deputy Sweetman would have been wiser not to have referred to the unemployment position at all. I shall just quote from the circular issued by the Central Statistics Office on 6th March, the figures for unemployment for the week ended 1st March this year and for the corresponding periods in 1957 and 1956. The present figure is 82,450. This time last year it was 91,194 and in the previous year it was 71,092. That means that in the last year in which Deputy Sweetman was Minister for Finance, there was an increase of 20,000 in the number on the live register. In other words, in the last year that Deputy Sweetman was Minister for Finance, there was an increase of 28.3 per cent. in the number of unemployed. That was Deputy Sweetman's record for his last year in office.

Mr. Coogan

Give us the number of emigrants now.

Mr. Sweetman

He would not want to do that.

Mr. K. Boland

In the first year that Fianna Fáil were in office, not alone have we stopped the increase that was taking place, but there has been a reduction of 9.6 per cent in the total number of unemployed.

Mr. Coogan

They are on the mail boats.

Mr. Sweetman

The Minister should try again. He can make statistics prove anything, apparently.

Mr. K. Boland

Nobody can get away from these figures. They are published by the Central Statistics Office. That is the picture that they present—an increase in unemployment of 28.3 per cent. in Deputy Sweetman's last year in office and a decrease of 9.6 per cent. in our first year in office.

Mr. Sweetman

And an increase in emigration in your first year in office.

Mr. Blowick

They say the cost of living has gone down.

Mr. Coogan

The Minister is O.K.; he has a pension, a big pension too.

Dr. Ryan

Fine Gael do not give a damn about figures.

Mr. K. Boland

It would have been a major achievement on the part of this Government to have merely halted that disastrous tendency in the figure for unemployment but, as I have shown, it has in fact gone down by 9.6 per cent.

Mr. Sweetman

It had gone down before we left office.

Mr. K. Boland

Deputy Sweetman tried to create the impression that the elimination of unemployment was in the hands of this Government.

Mr. Sweetman

No, I did not.

Mr. K. Boland

That is was in the hands of the Government.

Mr. Sweetman

I did not say any such thing but I said that you represented that 12 months ago.

Mr. K. Boland

I pointed out that what we represented 12 months ago was that it was because the people believed Fine Gael when they said this could be done that this disastrous position had in fact developed.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

The disastrous position being the return of Fianna Fáil?

Mr. K. Boland

If there was some way in which the Government could eliminate unemployment, I wonder why it was not employed during Deputy Sweetman's term of office. The fact of the matter is, of course, that there is a limit to what the Government can do in a private enterprise economy actually to provide employment.

Mr. Sweetman

It is a pity that the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Mr. Lemass, did not say that last year.

Mr. K. Boland

What the Government can do, and what this Government have been doing since they came into office, is to create conditions here in which it will be possible to maintain a high level of employment. These conditions certainly did not obtain at the time when we came into office.

Mr. Coogan

What about the posters, "Put your husbands out to work"?

Mr. K. Boland

That is what we are going to do.

Mr. Coogan

You are, over in England.

Mr. K. Boland

In spite of the situation that the previous Government left, we have gone a considerable distance towards doing that. In spite of the difficult financial position left to us to deal with, we took certain steps, even in our first year of office, to create the conditions under which it would be possible for our economy to expand and for increased employment to be provided. I have already referred to one of the steps that were taken, namely, the removal of the most harmful of the import levies imposed by Deputy Sweetman and the reduction of some of the others. In addition to that, when we came into office the building industry had completely collapsed because of the fact that the small dwellings loans were practically unavailable. We took steps to make those loans more freely available and while, as I said in Nenagh, unemployment is still heavy and is still heavy in the building industry, there is at least some employment in it; there was practically none when we came into office.

Mr. Sweetman

Two thousand fewer now than there were last year.

Mr. K. Boland

In spite of the difficult financial situation that we had to deal with, in the Budget that the Minister for Finance, Dr. Ryan, introduced last year we provided incentives for increased production, particularly for export. He gave an indication that it was this Government's intention to encourage production and the steps taken in producing a balanced Budget helped towards the restoration of confidence in the Government, which was one of the first essentials towards creating those conditions. The main step first of all, towards doing away with the conditions of continually increasing unemployment, and then towards creating conditions in which it would be possible for employment to increase, was taken by the people themselves when they put the Coalition Government out of office and put back the Fianna Fáil Government with a sufficiently strong majority to give us a stable Government here, a Government with a policy that was known, particularly in regard to industry.

Mr. O'Sullivan

A blank cheque.

Mr. K. Boland

The people gave the country that stable Government with a known policy in place of a Coalition Government whose policy was only made up from day to day and that had no definite plan.

The result of having a stable Government with a policy of fostering industry is that industrialists are now in a position to plan. They know that there will be a stable Government here and they can make their plans accordingly. They know also that there is no danger of the idea of the Leader of the Labour section of the Coalition gaining any support in the Government, in other words, the opinion that he expressed, when he was in Opposition, that the majority of our industrialists here should be behind bars.

They know that now there is a Government in office with a policy of fostering industry, and under those conditions there is every likelihood that industry will progress, that our economy will expand, and employment will increase. Even in our first year we have gone a considerable way towards creating those conditions. However, the progress we have made must be considered in relation to the situation that we took over. Deputy Sweetman maintained that in regard to our balance of payments position, as he put it, the corner had been turned when we took office. In actual fact, in the last year the Coalition were in office the deficit in our balance of payments was £14.4 million.

Mr. Sweetman

It was not.

Mr. K. Boland

In the previous year it was £35.5 million.

Mr. Sweetman

The Minister should quote me correctly. What I said was that in the last financial year up to 31st March, 1957, there was a surplus in our balance of payments, and I repeat that.

Dr. Ryan

He is taking the calendar year.

Mr. Sweetman

Let him not suggest that I said something I did not say.

Mr. K. Boland

It is interesting to quote also the figures for the previous Coalition when Fianna Fáil took over in 1951. In the year 1951 the deficit was £61.6 million, and when Fianna Fáil went out of office in 1954 that had been reduced to practically negligible proportions, to £5.5 million. Here again there are indications that this bar to increased employment has also been removed. The prospects appear to be that there will be, if anything, a favourable position in regard to that in this year.

All these things have helped to create the conditions necessary for expansion. The Fianna Fáil Government have in this their first year in office, given proof that we have the right ideas in this regard both by encouraging industry and, in spite of difficulties, providing these increased amounts for agriculture. It is a pity that Deputy Sweetman did not in this debate maintain the attitude that he expressed in the Vote on Account in 1956 when he concluded his speech by saying:—

"We must realise that prosperity is not to be had for the asking. We cannot vote ourselves progressive increases in our standard of living. These must be earned by producing more efficiently a greater volume of goods and services."

Mr. Sweetman

Hear, hear!

Mr. K. Boland

We can all agree with those sentiments.

Mr. Sweetman

But the Minister did not express agreement with them on the hustings last year.

Mr. K. Boland

I certainly did and so did every speaker for Fianna Fáil.

Mr. Sweetman

Indeed they did not.

Mr. K. Boland

The basis of our whole election campaign was that it was by accepting the contrary proposals of the Coalition Parties, Fine Gael, Labour and the other Coalition Parties, that the situation as it existed at that time developed.

Mr. Sweetman

At any chapel gate you like in Kildare I will argue that.

Mr. K. Boland

The whole difference between Fianna Fáil and the Parties opposite is that we have expressed these sentiments both in and out of office. Deputy Sweetman expressed them in 1956 but, judging by his speech to-day, he seems to be going back to the position of trying to implant in the minds of the public that it is merely by voting for a particular Party that unemployment can be solved and that a higher standard of living and better conditions can be secured.

Mr. Sweetman

Nonsense!

Mr. Blowick

I want to ask the Minister for Defence if he believes sincerely in all the things he has just told us. If he does he is a very innocent man. I think some of his more glib colleagues in the Cabinet are pulling the wool over his eyes and that, instead of occupying a ministerial chair he should be in the cradle still. The Minister for Defence, in common with the Minister for Finance when he presented the Vote on Account to the House, does not seem to have any idea what Government policy is.

Again I ask at this stage will somebody on that side of the House say what the Fianna Fáil Government policy is for the coming year? The people are entitled to know that. The Taoiseach says one thing. The Minister for Finance says another. The Minister for Defence says something else and Deputy Corry then contradicts the whole lot of them. In relation to this Vote on Account there seems to be an attitude of helplessness on the part of the Government. There is one remarkable thing, which I will deal with later, running through the whole system of their financial methods of running the country that is revealed by the Book of Estimates.

The Government says they are short of money and have proceeded to make cuts, and it is very interesting to see exactly where the cuts are being made. Coming from the country myself, I must take into account that first we have a cut in the farm buildings scheme of the Department of Agriculture of £140,000. Provision in respect of the Local Authorities (Works) Act is completely cut out. After the appointment of a Gaeltacht Minister—the Taoiseach said on a previous occasion that there should not be a Minister for the Gaeltacht— Gaeltacht housing, one of the principal benefits conferred by that Department is cut. This is followed—again it is the rural areas—by a cut of £700,000 in housing although the Minister for Defence has told us that when they took office they found housing had been practically at a standstill. If it was at a standstill a year ago, how will the cut of £700,000 affect it for the coming year? Is that supposed to give it an injection of new blood?

Forestry has been cut, the Minister tells, us, by £20,000. I want to correct the Minister for Finance. The main part of forestry has been cut by £113,000. The Minister for Finance should know that the business end of the whole Forestry Department comes under sub-head C.2., the business of establishing plantations, fencing and draining, and that has been cut by £113,000. The Land Commission has been cut in relation to the most important sub-head, which is sub-head I., the sub-head that gives the Land Commission freedom to execute the works they have to do such as migration, improvement of estates, and so on. That has been cut by £20,000, something which did not happen from the time we first took office in 1948 until now.

Public Works have been cut by £204,000 and Urban Employment Schemes by £60,000. There is one thing running through the whole gamut of economies, or so-called economies put into effect in this Book of Estimates by the present Government, and that is that it is the people of rural Ireland who are being hammered every time. This time last year the present Government were flushed with victory after winning an election on a shoal of false promises.

Mr. Sweetman

Hear! Hear!

Mr. Blowick

False promises they knew they could not fulfil. We had the Taoiseach in Belmullet telling us food subsidies would not be removed on any account and any suggestion to that effect was so much vile propaganda on the part of the out-going inter-Party Government at the time. We were told there were 100,000 new jobs to be got for the men and women of this country. But, instead of that, we have the Minister for Defence telling us to-night that unemployment has eased by something like 9 per cent. He did not tell us what the figure for emigration is. If the emigration that has taken place within the last 12 months had not occurred, then the unemployment problem would be absolutely staggering. It is a lucky thing for the present Government that England is there to absorb the boatloads of boys and girls who have to fly from the country, and not alone boys and girls but fathers and mothers, too, and whole families tearing themselves up by the roots and clearing out of the country.

The Government say they are short of money. No one can get a housing loan or a housing grant at the present time. I heard complaints to-day that those who have carried out land reclamation cannot get the grants from the Department of Agriculture. The Government say they have no money. It might be no harm now to point out three advantages they have that we did not have last year. The first is Deputy Sweetman's scheme of prize bonds, which amounted to £5,000,000 by the time the present Government took office. That was £5,000,000 that we did not have at our disposal. We did not have the £9,000,000 that the present Government collared from the working people and the small farmers by the removal of the subsidies on bread and butter. That is £14,000,000 the present Government has that we did not have. Apart from that, the confidence we had created throughout the country caused the loan they floated to be subscribed in full, £10,000,000, giving them a total of £24,000,000 that we did not have. Yet, they say now they are short of money.

I notice the Minister made a slight boast to-day to the effect that the figure which appears on the Book of Estimates is down this year. In actual fact it is not down. To that figure must be added the £9,000,000 that the Government took by the removal of the subsidies on the working man's bread and butter. We had to provide that last year. We were prepared to provide it. The present Government has not had to provide it.

I want to turn now to the statements made by the Minister for Defence on wheat and butter and milk and bacon. The farmers want to know where they stand in relation to the present Government. They have been coaxed into producing wheat and, now that they have produced it, they are told they are doing damage by producing enough. The Minister for Defence told us it was the policy of the Government to produce enough wheat for our own needs. A short time ago the Taoiseach told us that was not the policy of the Government; the policy of the Government was to produce two-thirds of our requirements and import one-third hard wheat from Manitoba. Which of the two statements is the truth?

Dr. Ryan

I will get a blackboard and show it to the Deputy.

Mr. Blowick

The Minister may need a blackboard more than I do. What is the policy of Fianna Fáil in relation to wheat?

Dr. Ryan

I shall tell the Deputy when I get a blackboard.

Mr. Blowick

Tell me now without a blackboard. As far as I can judge the Taoiseach's old habit is still strong within him; he likes to play ducks and drakes with the agricultural industry. At first he was glad that the English market was gone, and gone for good; to-day he is thanking God for the one bright spot in the agricultural industry, namely, our cattle trade with England —the cattle trade that he tried to kill. He spent 16 years trying to get the people to grow wheat and the people did not grow wheat until Deputy Dillon came to office. He was the first Minister for Agriculture who succeeded in getting the people to produce a surplus and he was told, of course, that he had no right to do that; it was wrong to produce enough wheat.

The Minister for Defence was at great pains to go back 16 or 20 years to pick up statements made by Deputy Dillon. It was Deputy Dillon who put agriculture on its feet through the ground limestone scheme and land reclamation. Unfortunately the present Minister for Agriculture has adopted the policy of "kill whatever your opponents do" and that is the only theme I can see running through all the cuts being made here.

Dr. Ryan

And 1/- per gallon for milk. That is what Deputy Dillon was prepared to give when he was Minister for Agriculture.

Mr. Blowick

Deputy Dillon is a man who does not talk about things; he does them. If Deputy Dillon had wanted to give 1/- a gallon for milk he would have had the courage to do that.

Dr. Ryan

He was not let do it.

An Ceann Comhairle

I suggest Deputies speak on the Vote on Account now.

Mr. Blowick

The Minister for Defence roamed over all these while the Leas-Cheann Comhairle was in the Chair. Perhaps he should not have been allowed to do that. I am merely answering some of the points he made. He made some very nasty statements about Deputy Dillon which, since they were false, should not be allowed to go unanswered.

I want to know from the Minister now if he will let the farmers know where they stand. They are accused of doing a disservice to the country by producing enough bacon, wheat and milk. What exactly are they to do? It is time that Fianna Fáil announced some policy other than the policy of meddling with what they do not understand. That is exactly what Fianna Fáil have been doing all along, tampering with the farmers simply because they are not organised and it is easy to play on them. Fianna Fáil has always regarded the agricultural industry as something to play with, something to fiddle with and something to toy with. First, the farmers are asked to produce enough and, when they produce enough, they are told they are doing a disservice to the country. It is no wonder we have a flight from the land. We have the best agricultural land in Europe and the most salubrious agricultural climate in Europe. Yet, we have a flight from the land unparalleled since the days of the famine.

Mr. Loughman

A flight of the farmers, is it?

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Loughman should allow Deputy Blowick to speak. The Deputy will be allowed to make his own statement in his own way.

Mr. Blowick

I want to refer to the cut of £222,000 in the ground limestone subsidy scheme. That scheme was initiated by the inter-Party Government through Deputy Dillon. I submit it is something that is absolutely essential. Any person who has any contact with rural Ireland knows that the whole agricultural output of the country suffered in the years gone by because the land was acid and badly needed lime. When the limestone business is just getting into full swing, this comes as a death blow to it. It will have the effect of driving up the cost to the farmer by between 4/- and 5/- per ton. It will affect agricultural output. We are largely dependent on the land for our standard of living, whether we live in town, city or village, and any tampering with that will have disastrous results in a few years' time. I believe the Government could have made a saving in some direction other than that.

It is time that a reappraisal of the whole structure of Government spending should be made by some competent commission. Money is being wasted in some directions while other worthwhile projects, which would give useful employment, are being starved and not attended to. It does not matter what Government is in power, it would be a step in the right direction if some competent economist examined our position to see where we are going. The time has come when that is an urgent necessity. I could say where savings could be made—and perhaps I might point out something which would do immense damage. No doubt every Deputy has his own ideas on the subject, as has the Minister.

I believe that the wealth of the country is not being channelled in the right direction and I have a good deal of company when I think along those lines. Everybody knows that, while the drain of emigration goes on, we have an undeveloped country. Everybody is wondering why it is we can find plenty of money for certain things and cannot find money for employment and for the useful development of our country. In the years before the last war, people said that England could not find any money to give employment to the unemployed walking the streets there, but the very minute war started, it was said England could find £12,000,000 or £14,000,000 a day to prosecute a war. The people of this country are thinking along the same lines. We can find plenty of money for many things, for new air runways and so on, but we cannot find anything for the useful development of our country. It is time there should be a reappraisal of our whole economy in that direction.

Mr. Desmond

Eight or nine months ago, when speaking on the various Estimates, we in the Labour Benches made it quite clear we were not taking it on ourselves to be critical of the Government or of the individual Ministers. We believed then that it was right and proper that they should at least get a period of 12 months to let us see what form their policy was taking. At this stage we are, unfortunately, in a position to be more critical of the Government and of the various departmental Estimates that will be before the House from now on.

A while ago the Minister for Defence drew attention to the necessity for a constructive approach when speaking on this important subject. Unfortunately, I am afraid that while he had the best intentions in the world, the Minister was not very constructive in his own approach. He drew attention to the fact that in his opinion it was because of the unfulfilled promises of the Coalition Government, as he said, that the people decided last year that that Government should be outsed. If that is true, it is an extraordinary fact when we realise that it has happened to all Parties since 1948.

If the Minister for Defence is correct in his assumption, it must mean that the people realised in 1948 that Fianna Fáil were not telling the truth. It must have happened again to the Coalition in 1951 when there was a change from inter-Party to Fianna Fáil; in 1954 to Fianna Fáil and in 1957 to the inter-Party again. I believe it is more important for us to understand ourselves, to arrange for a programme to put before the people and to stand or fall by it, than to speak in a critical or destructive manner of the policies of other Parties. On this important matter it is more important for us to draw attention to what we believe is wrong rather than waste time in quoting from other people's speeches at election time.

However, we are bound to draw particular attention to the position to-day in comparison with the position last year when an inter-Party Government had been in power for the full 12 months. We can remember 1956 when the present Minister for Finance and his colleagues were sitting in the Opposition Benches. We can remember how critical they were. They were not very anxious to be constructive in their approach to the problems existing them. Each and every one of us must remember the various issues of the paper An Gléas which month after month drew attention to the prices of every item increased. Surely the Front Bench members of the present Government must remember that? Should they expect members in any other part of the House to be less critical of them and their policy?

We all know that the Fianna Fáil Party held office for the best part of 20 years. While perhaps there may be excuses for irresponsibility on the part of well-intentioned people who might not have much experience in government, there is no such excuse for members of a Party who held office for so many years and who tell us at this stage that it is not fair to be critical of them while they themselves used every device, in this Chamber and outside it, to draw attention to what they considered were increases in the prices of various commodities affecting the cost of living.

It is natural that throughout the length and breadth of the Twenty-Six Counties comparisons are being made in relation to two very important items: (1) the cost of living, and (2) the question of employment and emigration. It strikes me very forcibly that when we speak of the cost of living we should not forget the line of approach to that question of the present Government when in opposition a few years ago. Surely the Minister for Fiance and the Taoiseach cannot forget that plastered all over Cork City, they had a monster poster showing the loaf of bread with a slice off it? They expected, and they did, secure increased votes by that poster. Will they not now show that poster to the people of Cork City with the slice still missing but with two increases in price added to it? The Taoiseach, no matter how interested he may be in statistics, must know that whether it be in Cork or in Dublin the increase in the cost of the loaf of bread is a major problem for the housewife. He surely must know that under the direction of Fianna Fáil Ministers two increases have taken place in the price of the loaf.

Again, we had under discussion last week the total cost of the subsidy for the export of butter. I am not blaming the present Government for their approach to that. It is quite true that they may have company on my left hand in relation to the wisdom or otherwise of such export subsidies. However, we cannot forget that the working people of the various cities, towns and villages have justification for the complaint that while subsidies carry Irish butter abroad to be sold cheaply they have to pay much more for the same butter here at home. The present Government must bear responsibility in that regard since it was made quite clear by the present Minister for Industry and Commerce and the present Taoiseach that they would not reduce such subsidies if returned to office.

Much has been said, and is being said, throughout the country in relation to wheat prices. I shall not deal with this matter at any length. The time for that will be when the various Estimates come up for consideration, but I will say, in a general overall way, that the real origin of the failure of the present Government is the fact that their overall policy in relation to agriculture is lopsided. Whatever may be said in relation to the price of wheat and barley the problem is that the overall policy regarding agriculture is based on a political basis concerned more with changes of Government rather than facing up to the problem from an economic viewpoint.

It is not many years ago since millions of pounds were provided for agriculture. That money and the interest thereon must be repaid. Year after year a certain amount of money, whether by subsidy or by indirect means, is being poured into agriculture and we also know that, over the years, that money has not produced the desired effect. Fianna Fáil must bear responsibility in relation to the agricultural policy. Throughout Dublin, Cork and various parts of the country potatoes are now costing the housewife 5/- per 21 lb. That is because of the lopsided view which has been taken in relation to the overall cost of wheat and barley and the fact that agriculturists were not advised to operate on a balanced economy of a fair return of the various crops which would give a guaranteed price.

Whether he was right or wrong time will prove, but Deputy Dillon, when Minister for Agriculture, did offer one important asset to the agricultural community and that was a fixed price over a number of years. How can we expect, and how can the Minister for Fiance who holds such an important post, expect, an even return of the various agricultural commodities when the prices for these commodities vary, not over a period of years but from season to season? That is all I wish to say in relation to agriculture except to point out again that two of the important items which have a great effect on the cost of living, bread and butter, have been increased by this Government. The present Government must give us the answer as to why, in their wisdom, they decided, on the one hand, that butter should be subsidised so that it could be sold in England at a reduced price, and, on the other hand, they decided that the people at home should have to pay more.

It may be said that because the surplus was there it was necessary to export it. That may be but coupled with this whole question of the cost of living in our small country must be the problems of unemployment and emigration. Twelve months ago speaker after speaker of the then Opposition drew attention to the terrible problem of unemployment. They were right in doing so and we in the Labour Party made it quite clear that a Government which would wish to put the question of emigration and unemployment into the background would be wrong in their approach.

Where do we stand now? Here this evening the Minister for Defence made comparisons between the figures relating to unemployment this year as against last year. It is true to say that this time last year it was a tragedy and a heartache to many of us to know that there were so many people unemployed. Quite rightly Deputies then in Opposition condemned us for it. The Minister for Defence, when speaking in this evening's debate, told us that there was an increase in employment of about 9 per cent. this year. A member of this House had a question down for answer to-day and the answer given to that question must be inaccurate and incorrect. The question asked for the number of persons in industrial employment and agricultural employment in the years 1956 and 1957.

The answer given here to-day was most interesting—the total number in industrial and agricultural employment in 1956 amounted to 729,000 persons. In 1957 the total employed in industrial and agricultural pursuits amounted to 705,000, 24,000 fewer than in 1956. Yet the Minister tells us that, comparing the figures for the different years, things are doing well under Fianna Fáil. If a reduction of 24,000 in the number of people earning their livelihood is "doing well" there must be something wrong with the Fianna Fáil idea of what is beneficial for the country.

It is essential that we draw the attention of the Government to some of the works that will be included in the Estimates we must deal with. The Minister for Defence referred to money spent under the Local Authorities (Works) Act. I do not know whether he has been a member of a local authority, but we remember that the late Minister for Local Government, Mr. T.J. Murphy, was lacerated by the Fianna Fáil Opposition in 1948 when introducing that measure. There was one or two notable exceptions in the Opposition at that time, and I give them credit for it, but generally, that Minister was condemned from the start in introducing that important Bill. Down the country, when comparing the volume of work made available in different years when money was provided under the Local Authorities (Works) Acts was against the last 12 months, we know what it has meant. Without it, there was financial loss to road workers and other sections of the community in various areas. That Act did not suit the Opposition at that time and I am convinced this money has been slashed because of that, as made clear last year in the Budget or in the Estimates. But it seems obvious to us that the Government failed to realise they were not injuring the political Parties who introduced this measures but were directly injuring thousands of men and their families who were dependent on local works for their living.

Housing has been mentioned. I do not know what is happening there. I was critical of the situation which I knew existed a little before the change of Government but it is fantastic for any member of the present Government to say that we are around the corner in regard to housing. Fewer people are now employed in housing than were employed last year. What is the remedy for that? Government speakers told us that money is now being made available more or less freely for house-building loans. It is available neither to individuals nor to local authorities as far as the experience of some of us goes. Housing schemes are held up simply because of red tape, not by Department officials but by directives from Ministers and the Government as a whole. Every housing scheme has the two-fold advantage of giving employment and providing homes for people; yet house-building is held up because of Government policy.

As members of local authorities we know that hardly a meeting of a county council or corporation passes that there is not some letter, stricture or indirect order from some Department in regard to economy. That does not help local authorities and unfortunately, whether or not the Government or the individual Ministers realise it, it is essential for local authorities to operate either on housing or roads. In many instances the men concerned have no alternative to working on roads but to work for local authorities.

When we make comparisons of the numbers employed in 1956 and 1957 it must be quite obvious to everybody, whether supporting or opposing the Government, that much of the trouble existing has been brought about by the conservative policy of Fianna Fáil. Ten months ago, perhaps, on various occasions when problems developed, members supporting the Government were able to fall back on accusations against the outgoing Administration and were always able to say that the inter-Party Government left everything wrong. It is late in the day to say that now; practically 12 months have passed and thing are more wrong in many ways now. Is it not time Government supporters woke up to their responsibility and understood that they are in charge, supporting the Government in control and that they should not blame individuals and Parties in opposition because of what they did years ago?

It is but right that we should mention one or two of the items of which we are critical. We are told that the money problem is a big one. Fianna Fáil Deputies here and at local authority meetings say that one of the problems from which this country has suffered for the past few years is credit restriction. I say the present Government is not solely to blame for that. Our position was made clear long ago both in conference and in this Chamber. We did not agree with the over-all credit restriction policy adopted by the inter-Party Government for the six or eight months before the last election. Fianna Fáil made it clear to the community that, not only were they against such credit restriction, but that they would provide the necessary funds to create employment. Coupled with that is the famous £100,000,000 plan. It is a couple of years since that plan was formulated. What has happened since? The Minister for Lands in a recent statement explained that that was but the blueprint. A blueprint is often considered the final draft from which the operative works. If the £100,000,000 scheme was in the blueprint stage two or three years ago, I do not see how a Minister can make the case now that they are only working on it.

We must all understand that the policy of credit restriction has hampered the industrialist, the agriculturist and the community as a whole. The wiseacres may say that we dare not discuss the financial connections at the present time. We know that credit restriction has been the direct cause of there being 5,000,000 unemployed in the U.S.A. at the present time. They are wise enough there to understand that it is essential to ease credit restriction. Will we have to wait eight or ten years to realise that the policy that has been the cause of trouble in other countries and that is being discarded by them is causing many of our young men and women to take the emigrant ship? That has been the case during the last 12 months and, before that, during the period of the inter-Party Government.

Two or three years ago the present Taoiseach made an extraordinary admission at a Fianna Fáil Árd-Fheis. I believe that the realised then the financial problem confronting this country. He said then that time was when he believed that there would be no trouble in getting money to finance the various projects for industrial improvement. Two or three years ago he realised that that policy was out of date. We must consider the consequences that flow from our being tied to our present financial connections.

Deputy Sweetman can take credit for the moneys saved as a result of the levies. To a certain extent, certain sections of the community may have a more stable bank balance now as a result of credit restrictions. Other people who unwittingly overstepped the mark in borrowing from the bank are now in a difficult position. I consider that the Government has responsibility not merely to one section but to the community as a whole. There is one important point. At the present time when Ministers and the Taoiseach are bemoaning the hard time and telling us that there is a long hard road to travel before we return to economic stability, many sections of the community are enjoying life a great deal more than they did three, four or ten years ago.

As Deputy Blowick said, if sacrifices are to be made, the Government must understand that the sacrifices must be shared by all. They are not being shared by all. There are members of this House who, because of their connections, must know in their hearts that the profits of some are such that they need never worry about the rainy day, that the bonus shares that were issued during the last 12 years have changed the position for many an industrialist. I do not mind the childlike statement of the member of the House who drew attention to what Deputy Norton said at one time about iron bars. There are people in this country whom it might be no harm to have behind iron bars. Perhaps that applies to people in every section of the community. Because Deputy Norton dared to draw attention to the profits made by some individuals and groups, he was attacked.

Mr. Haughey

What is wrong with profits?

Mr. Desmond

For the enlightenment of the Deputy who, because of his connection with many firms, must understand the position very well, profit in itself is justifiable and legitimate but there is such a thing as excess profit and the bonus shares that were issued in Dublin and Cork must be considered. While we are told that things are in a bad way and while the Minister for Finance may conclude this debate in his own jolly manner, while we are told that money cannot be provided for important agricultural projects, while the housewife must suffer by the Government policy of removing the subsidy on bread and butter, the Government finds it suitable and convenient to establish a new air service to America. I do not object to an air service but when the Minister for Health and other Ministers issue circulars which are tantamount to telling local authorities not to give an increase to their employees, is it right and proper, for the purpose of national prestige, to start air trips to America? I leave it at that.

I know many Deputies supporting the present Government and have known them for years. Perhaps one advantage we have in this House is that, while we differ, we appreciate one another's qualities. Knowing these Deputies as I do, I appeal to them. We can do nothing in opposition. The Government have a majority. I would say good luck to that majority if I could believe that it would be used for the benefit of the community, but when the people throughout the Twenty-Six Counties are clamouring against a policy that is creating hardships daily, surely it is not too much to ask those supporting the Government to use their influence with the Minister for Fiance and the Taoiseach?

If this Government could in its lifetime introduce measures which would be beneficial to the country one man and one man alone would be entitled to the credit and that would be the Taoiseach. If they are to introduce measures which in themselves are harmful and disastrous for the economic welfare of our people the man to be blamed is the Taoiseach. We all know that when the present Government, many of whom have been members of this House for many years, left their seats here in February or March of last year to face the electorate very few, if any, of them, had the hope of coming back to this House with an over-all majority. The credit for securing that over-all majority—it is immaterial in this context whether the method of getting it was justified or not—goes to the Taoiseach. Let him realise that if they succeed he will get the credit but that if they fail, in the autumn of his life, he will have to take responsibility for a policy which is being imposed upon the people and which will impose unjustifiable hardship on them.

If members opposite are fair to their leader and to themselves they will understand that the Vote on Account as presented to us and which indirectly is being presented to every man and woman in the country, is not in any way beneficial and will not be in any way helpful economically to the various sections of the community during this year or during the years ahead.

Mr. Haughey

The Book of Estimates which has been published gives us a clear outline of the financial policy of the present Government. It indicates quite definitely the objectives of that policy and the methods by which they hope to achieve their objectives. It seems absolutely clear to me that the main emphasis of that policy—and that emphasis keeps cropping up again and again under every heading in the Book of Estimates—is to the effect that Government expenditure as such must be kept to the existing level, at the same time ensuring that adequate finances are available for every desirable productive national project.

The Minister for Finance and the other Ministers have achieved a remarkable success in the presentation of these Estimates to the House. I calculate that as between the Estimates for 1957-58 and 1958-59 there is an over-all reduction in expenditure of £4.8 million. I must say that I agree with Deputy Sweetman to some extent there is not quite following the Minister's comparative figures, but I am sure that that can be straightened out. My calculations are that the Book of Estimates as published for 1957-58 contemplated an expenditure of £112,500,000 approximately. That was reduced downwards in the Budget statement to £106,000,000-odd and if we take into account the Supplementary Estimates which have been introduced for 1957-58, the Estimates for 1957-58, including the supplementaries, come to £114.8 million. If we compare that with the published total in the 1958-59 Book of Estimates of £110,000,000, it seems clear that the net over-all reduction as between the Estimates for one year and the other is £4.8 million.

I regard that as a very significant and important achievement on the part of the Minister. The real significance and importance of that reduction lie in the fact that it has been achieved while at the same time ensuring that moneys have been made available, in a number of cases in increased amounts, for every productive national project that there is.

I do not wish to be taken for one moment as subscribing to the theory that a reduction of Government expenditure is an end in itself or that it is in all circumstances a good thing. That to me would be a completely defeatist outlook to take and it would be a very restrictive way of looking at the value of monetary policy as a weapon in the hands of the Government to achieve economic expansion and prosperity. In fact it would be completely against the best modern economic thought here, in Britain or America. As a general principle, therefore, I do not think the mere reducing of Government expenditure as such is necessarily a good thing at all times. However, having said that it must also be said that, at the present time, in our present financial circumstances and in the state of our national economy, there can be no doubt whatever but that national Government expenditure must be trimmed to a level at which it will equate with resources produced by taxation.

In that respect I think Deputy Sweetman is mistaken when he says that he could not find out what the financial policy of the Government is. That policy is quite clear. The present Government is on record as stating that in its opinion taxation, in our present circumstances, is at the maximum level to which it can go and that the danger is that if taxation were increased any further yields would decline. We also stated clearly that we did not think that the practice of recent years of financing, year after year, Budget deficits by borrowing could continue. Having put those two propositions clearly and accepted them, the only logical outcome is that we must prevent Government expenditure from rising and if possible, in so far as it is wasteful or useless, non-productive or not socially necessary, it must be reduced. As I have said, the reduction of £4.8 million which I calculate the Minister has achieved in presenting the Book of Estimates is a very creditable and significant one.

The Minister, of course, like the famous classical economist, is faced with the problem of distributing scarce means between alternative ends. In so far as he has tackled that problem, he has recorded a notable success. He has achieved this very significant reduction while, at the same time, providing additional moneys for a considerable number of desirable productive projects. More money is made available for the Industrial Development Authority. Increased capital is placed at the disposal of An Foras Tionscal. Money is made available for what I regard as productive enterprises, namely, Shannon, Dublin and Cork Airports. Additional money has been provided for education in primary schools.

Mr. Sweetman

What?

Mr. Haughey

I was always taught it was bad manners to shout "What?"

Mr. Sweetman

If the Deputy misinterprets the figures so badly as that, he cannot blame anybody for bad manners.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

He must have got confused.

Mr. Sweetman

There is a reduction for new schools of £170,000. Does the Deputy mean education?

Mr. Haughey

I am talking of primary education and also technical education.

Mr. Sweetman

That is not schools.

Mr. Haughey

I regard technical education as of vital importance and particularly valuable from the productive point of view. One very significant feature is the increased provision of £2,500,000 in the Vote for Agriculture. I know all of us would like to see more resources flowing into farming. It would be a great thing if, like Great Britain, we could pump £300,000,000 into farming by subsidising our agricultural community, but we just cannot afford to do it. The resources are not at our disposal. The Exchequer could not possibly stand up to subsidies such as the Opposition are demanding. It must go on record that, despite everything that has been said about the price of wheat, milk and bacon, an additional £2,500,000 is being found this year for agriculture.

The reduction in the Book of Estimates is very important remembering that one of the big tasks facing the Government in getting the national economy moving forward again is procuring a return of confidence and a desire for expansion on the part of the business community. The one thing that influences a business community psychologically to get cracking——

Mr. Sweetman

That is a very unhappy word.

Mr. Haughey

——On that particular expansion is the fact that the Government itself is giving this very important lead because of the careful way in which it has prepared its Estimates for the coming financial year and the fact that it clearly demonstrates that it intends to run the affairs of the country on businesslike lines and in a careful fashion in the future.

I want to refer to Deputy Desmond's point about profits and bonus shares. Personally, I have never received a bonus share. But I do not think there is anything wrong in bonus shares. The only fund available to finance expansion and bring about employment is that which derives from profits whether they be industrialists', shopkeepers' or farmers'. If I were a workingman I would prefer to work for a company or firm making steady profits rather than for some bankrupt organisation struggling to exist. Once and for all, let us get rid of this cant that there is something illegal, immoral or wrong in profits.

Mr. Casey

Nobody said that.

Mr. Haughey

It is out of profits that workers get superannuation, canteen and recreational facilities and all the other amenities that go to improve living and make life pleasanter for the workingman.

Deputy Sweetman spoke at some length on the proposals that were put forward for a full employment policy. I would direct his attention to the fact that the title of that pamphlet was: "Proposals for a Full Employment Policy." In other words a clear distinction was made between proposals and policy. The proposals were put forward, as was pointed out by the Minister for Defence, as a basis for discussion at the time within our own Fianna Fáil organisation. The time at which these proposals were put forward for discussion was just prior to the disastrous year of 1956 when Deputy Sweetman was unable to have his national loan fully subscribed for the first time in the history of this country.

Mr. Sweetman

Nonsense! Go back and learn your facts before talking like that.

Mr. Haughey

The proposals were put forward in the light of the circumstances then prevailing, something to which all proposals must be related. It was subsequent to the proposals being put forward that financial disaster occurred under the Coalition Government, a disaster which caused everyone, whether they were Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or Labour to think again about our financial position and the direction in which we were heading financially.

Mr. Sweetman

Would the Deputy answer one question? Why did Deputy Lemass repeat them in November, 1956, and February, 1957, for the purpose of getting votes?

Mr. Haughey

He did not.

Mr. Sweetman

He did. I gave the Deputy the quotation.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Haughey is in possession.

Mr. Haughey

Deputy Sweetman talked about proposals for a full employment policy as put forward originally by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. It is with those proposals I am dealing and not with any speeches made subsequently.

Mr. Sweetman

And repeated by Deputy Lemass at Graiguecullen and in College Green. I am sure the Deputy was present at College Green.

Mr. Haughey

I was present at College Green at the final rally and the only reference made to unemployment was to the fact that never before in the history of this country had unemployment reached such critical proportions. Speakers on the Fianna Fáil platform did not at that time know exactly how bad the situation was and admitted they would not know until they assumed office. As far as my recollection goes, that is the gist of what was said.

Mr. Sweetman

Even that would not be the truth.

Mr. Haughey

Full employment is the objective of the Fianna Fáil organisation. It always has been and it always will be. Fianna Fáil will never regard its work as completed until full employment has been achieved. The present Government is working unremittingly to bring about a reduction in unemployment, a reduction in emigration, and an expansion of industrial and agricultural production. But they have also made it abundantly clear that there is not, and never has been, any magic wand that can be waved to bring about that situation.

The stated policy of the Government in this matter is that it is only by continued, steady and unremitting progress that the objective of full employment can be reached. In that regard there is no secret or mystery about the present Government's financial policy. It is clearly outlined in this Book of Estimates that we want to reduce any element of unproductiveness or waste in Government expenditure, provide all possible finance required for productive enterprises and thereby bring about the only possible state of affairs in which employment, industrial activity and production generally can start to rise again.

There is no doubt about it, and nobody in this House will deny it, that in 1956 the country ran into a serious financial crisis which very seriously threatened the whole basis of our finances as a nation. Until such time as the Government, by careful, determined hard work can restore soundness and order in the nation's finances, we cannot go ahead and achieve the expansion of employment which we require. In so far as the Book of Estimates published gives quite clearly the desire and intention of the Government in that regard, we can quite safely support the Minister in this Vote on Account.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I should like to join with Deputy Haughey and other Deputies in the entertaining, if rather elusive search for the Government's policy. I want to take as my starting point in this search some contributions made to the Budget discussion last year by the present Minister for Defence, on the one hand, and Deputy Corry, on the other. Starting with that solid basis, I want to inquire from the House where we have got in the last 12 months towards the implementation of that policy.

Mr. Casey

The Deputy is not going to quote Deputy Corry?

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I shall do it softly. The Minister for Defence talking here on the 15th May, 1957, on the Budget discussion had this to say:—

"In my opinion and in the opinion of any fair-minded person who even now goes back and looks over the speeches made in the election campaign, it is beyond all doubt that we were put in here as a Government to take the necessary steps to remedy the situation of mass unemployment and emigration brought about by the previous Government."

Later on, on the same occasion, as reported at column 1288, the Minister for Defence said:—

"The people who have been affected by that unemployment and resulting emigration have put their faith in Fianna Fáil to remedy this situation."

According to the Minister for Defence, speaking here in May, 1957, there was no doubt at all about it. The task which Fianna Fáil had to tackle in the 12 months which lay ahead of them was to end emigration and unemployment. I want to ask the House in a minute to consider the position after 12 months, but before I do that it might be as well, for the sake of Deputies representing rural constituencies, to know how Deputy Corry viewed the results of the election and to see what Deputy Corry thought at the time was the future for the wheat growers of this country. Speaking on the same date, the 15th May, 1957, as reported at column 1372, Deputy Corry had this to say:—

"Thousands of farmers, when they found that gang was on the run——"

that gang being the inter-Party Government.

"——started ploughing and growing wheat. The extra acres are in and the wheat is growing. They did that in the knowledge that, with their help, the country would get rid of Dillonitis. They got rid of that all right."

I hope before I conclude to invite Deputy Corry and other Deputies representing rural constituencies to consider the significance of the last 12 months or more, particularly the last month or so, in relation to the future for wheat growers in this country as seen by Deputy Corry just 12 months ago.

It was over the week-end that the Taoiseach made the claim that the year 1957 was a year of steady recovery. He said that the volume of agricultural output increased, the fall in industrial employment was reversed, unemployment figures fell but emigration figures were probably still very high. The general tenor of his speech was that the year 1957 was a year of gradual but steady recovery. I want to find out how that claim can stand up in the light of the present Book of Estimates and in the light of a reply which I received from the Taoiseach's Parliamentary Secretary to-day regarding industrial and agricultural employment.

Deputy Desmond already mentioned the answer that was given, and I think it very necessary that we should try to get further light on this subject, particularly in view of the claim made here by the Minister for Defence to-day, made, I think, by Deputy Booth last week and persistently made by Fianna Fáil speakers, that unemployment is going down. Let us be clear on this. When Fianna Fáil talk about unemployment going down, what they are referring to is the number on the register as unemployed. That is not the same thing at all. Any Fianna Fáil Deputy who thinks anyway more than superficially on the problem will agree with me that if you are talking about the number of persons unemployed on the one hand, you must also take into consideration, on the other, the number of people who have left the country in the last 12 months.

In order to try to find out what was the real position with regard to the Government's efforts over the 12 months they have been in office in relation to this question of unemployment, I asked the Taoiseach to-day:—

"If he would state the average number of persons in (a) industrial and (b) agricultural employment in the years 1956 and 1957."

Remember 1956, as far as employment is concerned, is the year that Fianna Fáil speakers paint as a disastrous year, a black year, and 1957 is the first year that the Fianna Fáil Government came back into office. These are the figures I got for the black year, as Fianna Fáil would have it, of 1956. We here admit that in 1956 the unemployment figures became very high, higher than they ever had been before under an inter-Party Government, although I do not think Deputy Haughey made the claim that an all-time record high was reached. I think it was higher in some of the Fianna Fáil years, in 1952 or 1953. However, I will not correct him on that. It certainly was at its highest under any inter-Party Government in the year 1956.

Take that year and compare it with the Fianna Fáil year of 1957 and we find that the estimated number of persons in industrial employment in 1956 was 289,000. The estimate for the number of people in industrial employment in 1957, the first year that Fianna Fáil was back in office was 275,000. In other words, there were 14,000 fewer in industrial employment in the year 1957, the recovery year of Fianna Fáil's return to office than there were in the black year of 1956.

So far as agricultural employment went the picture is practically exactly the same. In 1956 the number employed in agricultural employment was 440,000. In 1957 it was 430,000. As between the two, the years 1956 and 1957, the total number of persons fewer in industrial and agricultural employment was 24,000.

I do not know what the Taoiseach is talking about when he says that 1957 was a year of recovery. I do not know what the Minister for Defence is talking about when he says that there are fewer people unemployed. It is now perfectly clear from the answers given to my questions in this House to-day that the number of persons in employment in 1957 was fewer than in 1956. What is the explanation then if there are fewer people registered as unemployed? There is only one answer— that they have taken the emigrant ship and gone abroad.

In view of that is it any wonder to find that Aer Linte Éireann is able to take a full page advertisement in a daily newspaper and proclaim to the world the fact that they have specially reduced emigrant fares to America? There is no other explanation for the figures given here to-day by the Taoiseach's Department. As I see it, industrial and agricultural employment is down and it seems to me to be quite clear that emigration has gone up.

In reply to another question which I asked to-day, we find that the purchasing power of the £ has decreased by 4d. during the year. So far as the buying of commodities is concerned, the purchaser with £1 in his pocket finds that it is now worth 4d. less than it was after Fianna Fáil came back into office. In addition to that the cost of living has been increased since Fianna Fáil came back to office.

Various claims have been made as to what this Book of Estimates amounts to. Deputy Haughey made the claim that it showed an overall reduction of £4.8 million. Deputy Haughey will probably agree that in making that calculation he was assuming that there would not be any Supplementary Estimate during the year. I take it that he is nodding agreement with me, but I do not think that that is a fair basis of calculation. I think that the amount of the Supplementary Estimates introduced this year came to £7,250,000. My approach to the Book of Estimates does not accord with the calculation which Deputy Haughey has made. If we are to talk about the total figure published on the face of the Book of Estimates, we must remember that the last Book of Estimates produced by the inter-Party Government contained full provision for the food subsidies which have since been abolished by the Fianna Fáil Government. My calculation is that the flour and butter subsidies reduced it by about £8,000,000.

If the present Government wants to claim any reduction in the Book of Estimates there should be a saving of at least £8,000,000 to the taxpayer. In fact there is no such saving. If you were to take the food subsidies out of the inter-Party Book of Estimates, they would have shown a reduction of something like £5,500,000 underneath the figure in the present Book of Estimates. I made a quick calculation when I opened the Book of Estimates and I saw that, out of 66 or 67 items, 39 have increased. About 25 have been reduced and two have remained static.

Like Deputy Sweetman and some of the other speakers, I should like to say a few words with regard to some of the reductions that have been made. One of the items reduced by £222,000 is the subsidy for ground limestone. I think it was only last week in the Dáil that the Minister for Agriculture put himself on record as saying that Fianna Fáil had been given a blank cheque. I want to make the suggestion that, if they did obtain a blank cheque, they gave some pretty substantial promissory notes before they got it.

If we take the question of the limestone subsidy as an example, I want to repeat a quotation given here to-day by Deputy Sweetman and I am going to quote out of "Truth in the News." I am quoting from the Irish Press of Wednesday, 21st November, 1956, a statement made by the present Taoiseach with regard to ground limestone. He said:—

"They had been told, he said, that 12,000,000 tons of ground limestone was necessary to restore the productive quality of our soil. Less than 1,000,000 tons a year was being spread while it required 12,000,000 tons to put it right and 2,000,000 tons a year to keep it in condition. ‘If we are the Government again one thing I will promise and that is that everything we can do to push this ground limestone on to the land we will do it.'"

Is there anything ambiguous about that? Is that not a clear statement by the Leader of Fianna Fáil to the delegates that assembled at the Ard-Fheis that, if Fianna Fáil ever again had anything to do with the government of the country, everything they could do to push the ground limestone on to the land they would do. Yet, in the first Book of Estimates which they prepare after coming back into office we find a reduction of £222,000 in the subsidy for that scheme. That was a very clear statement made in 1956.

I have taken the trouble to go back over the Book of Estimates for some years. I find, in relation to the ground limestone subsidy, that in the year when the present Taoiseach was putting himself on record in that manner to the delegates at the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis, the amount provided in the Book of Estimates was £684,000 for that scheme. Apparently that would not be sufficient but he would see that the farmers had this ground limestone pushed on to their land.

There are other reductions in the Book of Estimates that are worthy of comment. We had reductions in the amounts provided for the Local Authorities (Works) Act, for farm buildings and for housing grants. It is worth noting what some of the Fianna Fáil supporters were invited to do over the past few years in regard to these reductions. Remember the reduction in the farm building scheme, in the housing grants and the reduction—I might say the practical wiping out—of work under the Local Authorities (Works) Act are all matters that will further affect the unemployment position here.

I have given the House the benefit of the reply by the Taoiseach's Department to my question to-day regarding industrial and agricultural employment. When Fianna Fáil Deputies were inviting the people of Cork to galvanise the country in a by-election some time back by electing Deputy Galvin to this House, they issued some pretty strong material to Cork citizens. The unfortunate citizens in Deputy Casey's constituency found that, after responding to the Fianna Fáil invitation and electing Deputy Galvin, instead of being galvanised they were —with apologies to the Minister for Education—lynched. This is what Fianna Fáil had to say to the people of Cork on that occasion:—

"In Fianna Fáil we have set a state of full employment as our goal. We believe it can be achieved; we are working out details of a dynamic programme of investment which, in an expanding economy, will bring the nation to that goal."

"A dynamic programme" which entails a reduction of £220,000 in the subsidy for transport of ground limestone, a reduction of £140,000 in the farm building scheme, a reduction of £700,000 in housing grants and a reduction of £350,000 in the Local Authorities (Works) Act, and all this in the year after food subsidies had been abolished and food prices allowed to rocket sky-high—not only allowed, but deliberately pushed up by positive action of the present Government!

When they were inviting Cork citizens to galvanize the country, Fianna Fáil also told the unfortunate people of Cork that Fianna Fáil was planning an end to emigration. Fianna Fáil plans proposed an increase over five years of 100,000 in the number of new jobs. We find the people of Cork were told on that occasion that private house-building was almost at a standstill. This is one of the things put out in heavily leaded type in the Fianna Fáil literature and now we find housing grants are to be cut by £700,000 in the coming year.

I could keep the House for some considerable time in dealing with any one of the Fianna Fáil election productions——

Mr. Haughey

Has the Deputy not got Gléas?

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Yes, and I shall deal briefly with Gléas. Whenever I think of Gléas it reminds me of a song current towards the end of the war. I understand Gléas is the title of the Fianna Fáil organisation pamphlet and that a rough translation of it is “ammunition”. Deputies will remember the ditty going around towards the end of the war: “Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.” I can imagine Deputy Corry, Deputy Childers and Deputy Haughey joining together in a beautiful chorus chanting: “Praise the Chief and pass the ammunition” because Gléas was undoubtedly a factor in assisting the Taoiseach and his Party to return to office.

I have here a volume of Gléas for March, 1956, which has come to hand, now that Deputy Haughey mentions it. This contains instructions to people like Deputy Haughey and Deputy Corry and, no doubt, to the Parliamentary Secretaries in a box headed: “Do you get your copy each month? It is the duty of cumainn secretaries to see that copies of Gléas sent to them each month are circulated among the members of the cumainn.” I hope Deputy Corry did not slip up on that. “Additional copies will be supplied to any cumann which makes application therefor and which shows it has made arrangements for their proper distribution. Individual copies of Gléas will be sent to persons whose names are supplied by cumann secretaries subject to payment of 2/6 per annum for each person.” I think that is somewhat lower than the charge for X-rays under the Fianna Fáil health provisions——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It does not arise on this debate.

Mr. Corry

I always find my own ammunition.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Except the boomerangs.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I merely said that to let the House know what type of publication Gléas was. I think it is clear from that that it may be taken as the official voice of Fianna Fáil——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy may not discuss all of this on the Vote on Account.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I shall not discuss all of it; I am just mentioning it en passant. This was ammunition supplied to cumainn secretaries and to those whose names were supplied by cumainn secretaries. In May, 1955, they had a plan for housing, and I think it is interesting in view of the proposed reduction of £700,000 in this Book of Estimates to see what the Fianna Fáil plan for housing was, according to Gléas.

I am quoting from Gléas of May, 1955:—

"Fianna Fáil believes that private individuals should be given every encouragement to build their own homes or to have them built for them and that, to enable them to do this, they should be given all the help and facilities they may reasonably need. Where houses are built by public authorities Fianna Fáil will encourage tenant purchase schemes."

We are told private housing should be given every encouragement, and now we find in their first Book of Estimates Fianna Fáil are cutting housing grants by no less than £700,000.

I referred also to the reduction of £140,000 in the farm building scheme and in this connection it is worth while to have a look at the literature which assisted in bringing Deputy Kieran Egan into this House. We find under a blocked column headed "Help for the Farmer" the Fianna Fáil propagandists had this to say:—

"Fianna Fáil is not satisfied with the present rate of progress. It is the policy of the Party——"

I am still in search for the policy and now we are getting it:—

"It is the policy of the Party when returned to office to provide increased grants for land reclamation and for the farm building scheme."

There we have it. That is the Fianna Fáil policy when returned to office, to provide increased grants for land reclamation and for the farm building scheme but, in their first Book of Estimates, after being returned to office, we find the farm building scheme is cut by £140,000.

The Taoiseach seemed to me to-day not to enjoy Deputy Sweetman's references to his remarks regarding the cost of living. I think Deputy Sweetman quoted the exact remark made by the Taoiseach which I think was to the effect that whenever he spoke—I think it was a week or so ago —what he said was that there was no evidence that the cost of living was now increasing. Let me relate that again to the Taoiseach's statement over the week-end that 1957 was a year of gradual and steady recovery.

I also sought some information from the Taoiseach to-day regarding the cost of living and the various articles which had increased in price since March, 1957. I was given the increases which had taken place between mid-February and mid-November, 1957, when Fianna Fáil had been in office for a very considerable period. In fairness to the Deputies on the other side, the Taoiseach in his reply also included in this items which had decreased in price. We find that beef had increased by 5.23 per cent; mutton by 4.36 per cent; creamery butter by 15.86 per cent.; bread by 48.73 per cent.; household flour by 73.24 per cent. There are various other increases. The House might well complain that I was delaying matters unnecessarily if I read out these three pages, but they will all appear in the Dáil Debates for to-day.

Mr. Haughey

Would the Deputy agree that the index went down one point between mid-August and mid-November, 1957?

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

If the Deputy tells me that, I will accept it, but remember that as a result of the last Budget it went up five points. If the Deputy thinks that he has rendered a singular service to the country in bringing it back one point, according to my mathematics, that still leaves it up four points.

Mr. Haughey

That is all the Taoiseach said.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Therefore, it was only a half-truth. Is that the Deputy's point?

Mr. Haughey

The Taoiseach said it came down one point.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy O'Higgins.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I do not think any of the Deputies opposite will deny that a very substantial increase has taken place in the cost of living or, if they do deny that, I should like them to say it.

Mr. Haughey

I am only giving the Deputy exactly what the Taoiseach said.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Does he say it is coming up or going down?

Mr. Haughey

He said quite truthfully that the index went down one point between mid-August and mid-November, 1957.

Mr. Casey

That is not what he said. He may have meant that.

Mr. O'Sullivan

The Labour Court must have gone crazy so—15/8 per household.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Remember, the Taoiseach's Department also told us to-day that from the time that they took over—I think the date they gave was Friday, 1957—the purchasing power of the £ has lost in value to the tune of 4d. in the £.

Mr. Haughey

That is not quite what they say.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

No, but that is what the Taoiseach says.

Mr. Haughey

No, it is not quite what they say.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I may have misunderstood him but I took it as that.

Mr. Haughey

What he said was that goods and services which would cost £1 in mid-February, 1957, and in mid-November, 1957, would have cost 8/- and 7/8 respectively in 1938.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Does the Deputy see any difference? I say it has lost 4d. in value. He says it will buy 4d. less.

Mr. Sweetman

That is a difference without a distinction or a distinction without a difference.

Mr. Haughey

There is a difference.

Mr. Sweetman

It is still 4d.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I do not wish to delay the House very much longer. I am quite prepared at the slightest provocation to deal with various utterances by Deputies on the other side.

Mr. Haughey

You have a good research system, I must say.

Mr. Sweetman

We learned a few lessons from you in that respect.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I started by referring to this question of employment which, on my reading of the remarks of the Minister for Defence on the occasion of the Budget, was the reason the Deputies opposite became Government and I have referred to the figures which were given to-day. I just want to refer also to some figures that were given in the House last month in reply to a question by Deputy Norton when he asked for the figures for persons employed on road works in 1957 and 1958. While I do not claim that there is any very great difference in the figures, it is worth noting that the number employed on 31st January, 1958, as against 31st January, 1957, in a great number of counties has decreased. We find that there are fewer employed on the roads in Cork in 1958 than in 1957; fewer employed in Dublin, Kerry, Kildare. Leitrim, Limerick, Longford, Louth, Mayo, Meath, Monaghan, Offaly, Roscommon, Sligo, Tipperary (North Riding), Waterford and Wicklow.

Remember the Fianna Fáil posters during the election: "Unemployment is the test.""Wives, get your husbands back to work.""Beat the crisis.""Let us get cracking." In his contribution to the Budget last year the Minister for Defence did not put a tooth in it: Fianna Fáil were to be brought back to end emigration, to get the people back to work. In industrial and agricultural employment you had an average of 24,000 persons fewer in employment after Fianna Fáil had got cracking than were there for 1956. You have there the list of counties with persons employed on road works at the 31st January, 1957, and the 31st January, 1958, and I have read out the long list of counties where decreases had taken place. Fianna Fáil have nothing to be proud of in their last 12 months of office. The Book of Estimates which they have produced is not one which holds out any prospect for the coming 12 months that Fianna Fáil know where they are going, that they know the problem that confronts the country or how to solve it. They may know the problem but they are not giving any evidence in their Book of Estimates that they are going in any direction which will solve it.

To conclude, may I come down to local matters? I have here one of the Fianna Fáil pamphlets published in the Dublin South West constituency and bearing on it the photographs of the Fianna Fáil candidates for the constituency. Under the heading of "Let Us Go Ahead Again", Fianna Fáil candidates for Dublin South West invited the people to vote for Deputy Briscoe, Deputy Noel Lemass, Deputy Barney Butler and their fourth colleague in the constituency. They had this to say among other things:—

"We have to elect a Government which will straighten matters out again. We want to see men and women going back to work again with a fair chance that their jobs will last and a prospect of new jobs coming along for the younger folks and the unemployed. We want the factories back on full time and we want to see the building of houses going ahead and trade at the highest level. That means securing a Government with a sufficient majority in the Dáil to enable it to carry its own policy."

They finished this appeal: "Beat the crisis. Let us get cracking," and they told the electorate that Fianna Fáil was the only Party which met with these various conditions which they had set out. They said that Fianna Fáil did a good job for the country before the war—they were going back a bit—and that Fianna Fáil had the capacity to beat the present crisis.

Fianna Fáil got that majority. They got it by default, by a number of people staying away from the polls. In fact, the increase in the Fianna Fáil vote over the whole country, from recollection, was about 14,000, which is roughly the equivalent to which industrial employment has dropped in the year 1957 when Fianna Fáil got their majority. Although Fianna Fáil got their majority by default, we are entitled now to ask them to live up to their propaganda, to see to it that men and women go back to work "with a fair chance that their jobs will last and a fair prospect of new jobs coming along for the younger folks and the unemployed," in the words of Fianna Fáil's appeal in my constituency. We are entitled to say to Fianna Fáil that we want the building of houses to go ahead rather than have the amount for grants reduced by £700,000. Fianna Fáil have got their majority and surely after 12 months it is now time for them to find their policy.

Mr. Corry

I should like to ask Deputy O'Higgins a few question in connection with the Vote on Account. First of all, in connection with road grants, is it not a fact that last January 12 months instructions were sent out from the Department of Local Government to anticipate the coming year's grants so as to find some employment during the last three months of last year? There was no money but the county council could go and borrow the money on the strength of the following year's grants and use that to keep road workers in employment from January to the 31st March. That is one of the reasons why there is now no money left for road works.

I wonder would Deputy Sweetman tell us about the conference he had over in the Department of Local Government at which he instructed the people there and the county managers: "Whatever way you manage, the housing schemes will be held up for there is no money there."

Mr. Sweetman

That was not what I said at all.

Mr. Corry

That was the fact.

Mr. Sweetman

I was there and the Deputy was not.

Mr. Corry

The Deputy was there and the county managers, and that is what Deputy Sweetman told them.

Mr. Sweetman

I was there and the Deputy was not.

Mr. Corry

I was not there but I heard enough about it to know what happened.

Mr. Sweetman

And we had a more peaceful meeting when the Deputy was not there.

Mr. Corry

We had the result in Cork South, North and West as regards housing for the rest of that year. Apart from that, we had a very grave position as regards polio in Cork. Three letters were sent to the Minister from the South Cork Board of Assistance, of which Deputy Casey and Deputy Desmond are members, asking permission to put in 20 extra beds in the Orthopædic Hospital for polio cases. At the time we were in extremity for bed accommodation, but those three letters remained unanswered. The Minister at the time said, in reply to a question by me, that conditions of financial stringency were such for the inter-Party Government in 1956 that they had not the price of 50 per cent. of 20 beds.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 13th March, 1958.