I should like to approach the problem somewhat differently from Deputy Donnellan. I would just refer to the Vote on Account for a few minutes. In the figures which the Minister for Finance presented to us a few days ago, as I understand them, there is an apparent lower estimate, compared with the figures we got 12 months ago, of £1.7 millions. That is largely accounted for by savings under the head of Industry and Commerce, due to the withdrawal of the food subsidies, £1.9 millions; Transport and Marine, a reduction in the grant to C.I.E. and G.N.R., £1.9 millions; and then a reduction in Local Government amounting to almost £1,000,000.
I take it as a gross saving of £4,500,000, against which we must set off the increase in the Department of Agriculture, £2,500,000, plus some other increases under Aviation, etc., leaving a net difference between this Estimate of the Minister's and the figures presented 12 months ago, of £1.7 millions, as I have just stated. However, that is after the Minister, in introducing his Budget, had raised taxation by an estimated £3,000,000 and had adopted a net saving of £6,000,000 on food subsidies and other savings, which means, in effect, that, 12 months later, we are presented now with almost the same set of Estimates, after the food subsidies have been withdrawn.
I know the Minister's answer will probably be that when he came to examine the Estimates on which he was framing the Budget, he found a deficiency of £6,000,000, and, in order to meet that deficiency and also meet an anticipated increase in expenditure of £3,000,000, he had to find £9,000,000. The fact remains, however, that the only way this Government is able to carry on the services is at the cost of the removal of the food subsidies. That is what it seems to amount to, in a nutshell.
Almost 12 months ago, when introducing his Budget, the Minister—and, I think, quite rightly—attacked the cost of administration. In the four days during which I have been listening to the debate here, that point was not mentioned on one occasion. I listened to discussions on wheat, on milk, on beet and on a lot of matters which had nothing to do with this Vote on Account, but no Deputy, while I was listening, made any reference to what I regard as the key problem, that is, the cost of central and local administration.
Whether we cut the food subsidies or increase the payment to the farmers under the tuberculosis eradication scheme, when the figures are presented to us, we find that the cost of administration remains at the same figure. Twelve months ago, in his introductory speech on the Budget, the Minister said:
"The searching out of wasteful or unnecessary expenditure and its elimination will require keen and continuous attention. But the urgency and difficulty of our budgetary problem this year required that a start should be made at once. I shall mention a number of specific economies which have already been decided upon but which represent merely an instalment of what the Government hope in time to achieve.
It will be no surprise that I should begin with the administrative machine. The present annual cost of the Civil Service, Gardá Síochána and the Defence Forces amounts in round figures to £25,000,000—almost £17,000,000 for the Civil Service, over £3,500,000 for the Garda Síochána and nearly £5,000,000 for the Army."
I have no means at my disposal of knowing what the cost of the Civil Service is, or what the Minister estimates it will be in the coming 12 months. The cost of the Garda Síochána and the Defence Forces combined is now £11,000,000. The Garda Síochána is £4.8 millions, as against the £3,500,000 which, ten months ago, the Minister regarded as too high. The Defence Forces are costing £6.2 millions as against the £5,000,000 which the Minister then regarded as excessive.
It is interesting to refer to the total, compared with the total nine years ago, as represented by the Book of Estimates, to find out some comparative costs of administration nine years ago. It certainly gives very interesting information. The figures show that the cost nine years ago was £73,000,000 for running this unfortunate country and then the combined cost of the Garda Síochána and the Defence Forces amounted to 9.3 per cent. of the total cost. Now, nine years later, it costs 50 per cent. more, at £110,000,000, and the total cost of the Defence Forces and the Garda Síochána amounts to 10 per cent. of the total. The Minister went on to say—and I agree with the Minister in what he was saying:
"There are almost 32,000 civil servants, of whom about half are employed in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. An annual bill of £17,000,000 for the pay of civil servants is, however, too much for a country of our size and resources."
Further on, he said:—
"I am satisfied that action even on these lines will produce a saving of at least £250,000 in the current year and I am taking that saving into account in framing my Budget.
By the adoption of the most modern methods a reduction in Garda strength has been effected. Every opportunity of further advances in this direction will be availed of consistent with the maintenance of a fully effective force.
The position in regard to the Defence Forces is one which requires special consideration in the light of changing circumstances, but an immediate small economy is possible which, with minor savings elsewhere, should yield £100,000 this year."
Then the Minister goes on to say, quite rightly:—
"It is clear that we have come to a critical stage in our economic affairs. The policies of the past, though successful in some directions, have not so far given us what we want. We are not satisfied with the rate at which living standards are being raised and productive and self-sustaining employment provided."
He went on to say, and this is important:—
"It is to agriculture we must continue to look as the chief source of exports and the mainstay of our economy."
I do not think any Deputy would disagree with that statement. The Minister continued:—
"The raising of agricultural production in volume and in value is, therefore, of vital importance. In broad terms, increased agricultural production depends primarily on the provision on a wider scale of expert technical advice and assistance, on increased use of fertilisers, improved management of grasslands, more intensive production of home-grown feeding stuffs for conversion into export products, the reduction of costs and, not least, better marketing arrangements."
I think every Deputy will agree with the latter part of that sentence. Certainly I was going to welcome the fact that the Minister had made provision almost 12 months ago for £250,000 to improve the marketing of agricultural products, but I do not know what has happened to that money. Possibly some of it has been spent; if it has I do not know anything about it.
With regard to the position of agriculture, again referring to this interesting Book of Estimates, I find that in 1948-49 the Estimate for agriculture —which we all agree is the basis of our economy, on which the future prosperity of the country, and of the people, individually and collectively, and their standard of living depends— including supplementary grants, lands, forestry and fisheries, provided for just over £15,000,000, or 20.5 per cent. of the then Estimates of £75,000,000. In 1958-59 the Estimates provide just over £18,000,000 under the same headings, or a percentage of 16.9 of the total Estimates of £110,000,000. In other words, agriculture, the one fundamental item of our meagre resources, on which we should concentrate as much as possible, has gone down from 20.5 per cent. of the estimated expenditure to 16.9 per cent. in the Estimates for the coming 12 months.
I listened to a number of speakers here and very few of them suggested any constructive method by which the position could be improved. As I said at the outset, I think the Minister must put first things first and the cost of administration must come down. I see no hope of putting our house in order unless the cost of administration can be cut down. I believe the Minister generally started off with that in his mind 12 months ago, but, apart from cutting some of the Estimates, I cannot see where any other apparent saving has been made, or where any effort is made to cut out non-productive expenditure and to channel the money so saved into productive effort.
I understand that the production of wealth means the application of skill, enterprise and capital to material. In our case the material is primarily the land. Unless and until we can save the greater proportion of our national income and devote it to the expansion of agriculture, then our position here will always be as it is at the moment— an under-developed, under-populated country with its people either unemployed or under-employed.
The provision of capital can only come from two sources. One is from our own resources, which means a more stringent standard of living, and the other is to get external capital. The obvious and only way to do that is to induce external capitalists to come into the country. I know that incentives have been given in that regard, and I welcome them, but I do not think that they are enough. I think the Minister will have to give serious consideration to a suggestion already made, both inside this House and outside it, which was to extend the period of the tax-free concession from five years to a longer period. It would be of considerable interest to outside industrialists if that period were at least doubled to ten years.
Some Deputies who have spoken laid the blame on the failure of private enterprise to provide an adequate standard of living, and it has been suggested that the State should take a more active participation in the economy of the country. I think I am correct in stating that this State, which at least gives lip service to private enterprise, takes a greater part in the economy than Socialist or semi-Socialist States, such as Great Britain or Sweden, take.
I do not think you can have it both ways. I know that in the present complex, modern economy, the State has to play a greater part in the economy of the country than it had 25 or more years ago, but I think it is up to the Government, or the people, to decide themselves what sections of the economy should be looked after by the State. The obvious sections are the public utilities, like the railways, Bord na Móna, electricity and so on. But by and large it is, to my mind, to the private side of the economy that we must look to provide the necessary expansion to keep our people employed. While various examples were given, like Bord na Móna, the E.S.B. and the Sugar Beet Company, which are certainly excellent examples, nobody thought of looking to the side of private enterprise industries like Messrs. Guinness, the Sunbeam Wolsey group and other industries which have survived in spite of intense competition both inside and outside the country.
One thing certain is that you cannot have it both ways; you cannot have a sort of semi-Socialist economy. I think you have got to decide which side is going to be Socialist and which you will leave to private enterprise. You have got to leave private enterprise to do its best and, if it fails, then the Government has got the moral duty to step in. To my mind, it is only under private enterprise that the natural gifts of hard work, initiative and enterprise can be encouraged. You must give a man a fair reward especially if he is prepared to risk his capital in a doubtful outcome.
I do not believe there is any ideal system which will ensure prosperity for the country. I know that Deputy Dr. Browne has very fixed ideas on the set-up here, and I agree with a good deal of what he says, but I think that, for quite a few years to come, we must have the political set-up which we have to-day, and it is up to us to make the best we can of it. Deputy Browne referred in rather scathing terms to the whole idea of free trade. It does appear that it is now inevitable and I think our industrialists will have to do a lot of new thinking on the whole question.
A protectionist policy was inaugurated here, especially by the Fianna Fáil Government in 1932. It did give rise to the setting up of a lot of small units spread throughout the country; it did have the advantage of giving local employment in towns and some cities throughout the country. From that point of view, it was a very welcome development, but we are now in the position that, when the European Free Trade Area comes into being, these small units will not be able to compete with the larger and more efficient units in continental countries. If the Free Trade Area comes into operation, there must be some consolidation between these small units, if they are to survive in the concept of free trade.
Many Deputies have blamed one side or the other of the House, according to which side the member speaking happened to represent. I am only a new Deputy, but I cannot help thinking that a lot of the difficulties can be laid at the door of politics. I do not mean the science of government, but I do mean dishonest politics. I have listened to Deputies for two days this week, and two days last week, blaming one side or another. If they just changed sides, I have a feeling those Deputies would make the same speeches. I think it was Deputy Dr. Browne who said we should change these things now and base our politics on economics and social welfare affairs. I hope the day when that will happen is not too far away.
