Committee on Finance. - Resolution No. 9—General (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (16th Dáil) – Thursday, 1 May 1958

Committee on Finance. - Resolution No. 9—General (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

That it is expedient to amend the law relating to customs and inland revenue (including excise) and to make further provision in connection with finance.—(Minister for Finance.)

Mr. McQuillan

This Budget has been described by members of the Fianna Fáil Party and by their paper as an as-you-were Budget or a standstill Budget. To my mind the individual who stands still in a quagmire is bound to sink deeper into the morass. Likewise, to introduce a standstill Budget here when the country is in an economic quagmire is inviting further disaster. It is only 18 months ago since I read a most heartening contribution by the then Deputy Lemass, now Tánaiste, to a Fianna Fáil gathering here in Dublin. At that meeting of his own associates he described his new plans for a dynamic approach towards solving the problems of the country at present. His approach at that time suggested that there would be an end to the old cautious, stagnant mentality that has been in control for so many years. But with the advent to power again of Fianna Fáil evidently Deputy Lemass was satisfied he had put one across on the electorate and that there was no need to put into operation what I can only describe as the excellent plans of 18 months ago. That type of jig-acting and trickery—of course I must admit it is not confined to the Fianna Fáil Party; it is a common failing here to submit various types of plans to the electorate prior to an election but when the election comes these plans are all forgotten—has disillusioned the public, has made cynical the best of our people and has helped to add further to the stream of emigrants leaving this country every year.

The Budget produced by the Minister for Finance takes up 18½ columns of the Report of the Dáil Debates and extends over 7,300 words. In that total there are less than 50 words devoted to what the Minister himself describes as the twin problems of emigration and unemployment. Those two major ills are dismissed in one sentence at column 615 of the Official Report, 23rd April, 1958:—

"As I said last year, the remedy for the related problems of emigration and unemployment is through the provision of productive occupation."

That is the Minister's only comment in his entire speech on those two problems.

But what do we find in the column just before it? He deals with the fact that we have now reached the end of the building drive and that to a great extent the need for houses has been met. He says that alternative arrangements will have to be made to absorb the skilled labour which is daily leaving for England because there is no further use for their skill here. While he is telling us we must make alternative arrangements to employ these skilled artisans and workers we find there is a reduction in the amount of money made available for the building of schools.

He dismisses the problem of the schools in one sentence by saying that schools have been built or reconditioned although admittedly there is still much leeway to be made up. Now the Minister has an opportunity of switching over a certain proportion of the skilled unemployed men to deal with our school building problem and to bring our schools up to date. The situation is scandalous at the moment and the Minister now has the opportunity, by providing extra money, or by switching over money that would have been devoted to housing, to deal with that situation. Of course, by the time the powers that be get down to considering plans in that regard all the workers will have left the country.

Several Deputies on both sides of the House have shown that they are perturbed by the hardships endured by the weaker sections of the community—the old people, the sick and the unemployed. I have always maintained that our political hearts are full of sympathy for the position in which the poorer sections of the community find themselves. We have the greatest sympathy for these people but we have nothing else for them but that sympathy. In spite of the fact that we wish to improve their condition we are able to bear up, with great fortitude, under their misfortunes, in a truly Christian fashion.

I read in last Sunday's Press a statement by a Jesuit father, the Rev. Michael Pelly, on conditions in Limerick. He said: “Nobody is aware of the extent and the intensity of the poverty in Limerick. It is estimated that at least 300 families in Limerick have gross weekly incomes of less than 10/- per person. That should give some idea of the poverty in our midst.” That quotation is from the Sunday Press of the 27th April, 1958. That is the statement of a responsible man in close touch with actual conditions. Yet we find that there is no hope of improvement for these people in this Budget. We are told that we have no money to expend on such a deserving object. I do not accept that point of view at all. If there is any harum-scarum scheme put forward by any pal of a Minister, no matter how harebrained that scheme might be from an industrial point of view, there is never any shortage of money to meet its cost. If we want to cut a fine figure abroad in international society there is no shortage of money to keep up that front. We are not short of money for luxury embassies all over the world. We try to keep up with nations who have 15 to 30 times our resources. We have money for those things that are not essential and that have proved useless, in so far as any increase in our external trade is concerned. Yet, we have not the money to help the weaker sections of our community—the old, the sick, and the unemployed. The nations we criticise as being non-Christian, and far away from God, are the very nations who are the first to help the weaker sections of their community.

Two of the reasons put forward as to why money cannot be made available for the help of the weak are the fact that we have to balance the Budget and seek equilibrium in our balance of payments. I have looked up the various import and export figures for the last 20 years and not once have I found that our exports have equalled our imports. We have always had a large import excess and that excess has been balanced by our financial wizards by bringing in our invisible assets. These are used to offset the import excess.

These invisible assets are made up mainly of the income from tourism and the income from emigrants' remittances. A sum of £55,000,000 has been set aside as representing our invisible assets and of that, £45,000,000 to £50,000,000 is made up of receipts from tourism and emigrants' remittances. It is beyond contradiction that the history of tourism in this country goes back to the famine years. The majority of people who come here, and who are described as tourists, are Irish people who emigrated within the last ten years or else the sons and daughters of those who emigrated during the last 50 to 100 years.

If any Deputy desires it, I shall be only too glad to break down the tourism figures for him. Tourism on the one hand, and emigrants' remittances on the other are the means by which we reach equilibrium in our balance of payments. Emigrants' remittances are made up of the money sent home by Irish men and women who were driven out of the country by economic circumstances. The two together made up about £45,000,000 in 1957. The plain fact can be established that we are dependent upon the export of our own people to seek equilibrium in our balance of payments. If we had not this huge emigrant figure every year we would be in a very grievous position regarding our balance of payments.

To put it more bluntly, in order to seek the emigration figure we need a high unemployment figure must be created here. If we drive up the emigration figure through unemployment, the income from tourism and from emigrants' remittances will be increased proportionately and will thereby help in getting the equilibrium we need in our balance of payments. The people responsible for making the assessments with regard to our financial position, each year, conscientiously include on the credit side £45,000,000 invisible assets from the two sources I have mentioned. It is only fair to suggest that, when they are being so honest in their accountancy, as to include that sum on the credit side, they should include on the debit side the capital value of the people who have been driven out of the country. No such figure is included.

Deputy Davern and other Deputies rightly said last night that every man and woman who leave the country represent a very serious loss. They are not regarded as a financial loss. No account is taken of that loss in the financial returns, but account is quickly taken of any gain that can be ascribed to the fact that they have left the country.

Taking this matter from the purely materialistic standpoint, let us consider a human being as a commodity. I have figures here that can be described as pretty accurate, although it is very difficult to get an absolutely accurate figure of the cost of an individual up to the age of 18 years. Taking the population at 2.9 million for, say, the year 1955-56, we find that the cost of food for that population was £154,000,000, and that the cost of clothing was £51,000,000, making the cost of food and clothing for an individual an average of £70 per year. That would mean that by the time a person reached the age of 18 years the cost of food and clothing was over £1,200.

Taking the amount of money spent on teachers' salaries and, to a certain extent, the cost of the construction and replacement of schools, primary school education for a person between four and 14 years of age costs £20 per annum, which, for a ten-year period, would amount to £200. The inclusive figure for food, clothing and education for a boy or girl who has reached the age of 18 years would, therefore, be almost £1,500. I have not taken any account whatever of the money spent on secondary education or on the education of university graduates who have to emigrate. Taking it at its lowest, the most poorly educated emigrant costs the State £1,500.

On the basis that 50,000 people leave the country per annum or on the basis that 40,000 leave the country per annum, so that I may not be accused of exaggeration, and putting a capital cost on each of them of £1,500, that represents an annual capital loss of £60,000,000. There is no figure for that capital loss included in the honest accountancy that we have here. That loss has been continuing annually and at an increased rate over the last ten or 12 years.

The loss represented by every individual who leaves the country is twofold. First, there is the loss of these people as primary producers, as the most fit and virile of our community. Secondly, there is the loss on the consumer side. There are fewer people to consume agricultural products, fewer people to pay for E.S.B. development, Bord na Móna and other useful capital development projects. The result is, inevitably, reduced demand for many desirable projects. That is the position at the moment and the vicious circumstance is that the situation will get worse every year.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,

Mr. McQuillan

We have always had the problem of an import excess which has been around £50,000,000, since I can remember. That has been balanced by utilising the value of emigrants and tourists as invisible assets but have we considered how this disequilibrium in the balance of payments has taken place? What consideration has been given by the various Governments to means of remedying that import excess other than by using invisible assets? The disequilibrium in the balance is not due to our trade with our next door neighbour, Britain. As far as Britain is concerned, we export only as much there as we import, but it is with countries other than Britain that this lopsided position has arisen. Instead of concentrating on these other countries, to bring about equilibrium, so far as our trading problems are concerned, we try to overcome those trading difficulties by concentrating solely on the British market. Last year, were it not for the fact that we had a large number of cattle for sale, our balance of payments position would have been far worse.

It is well worth while examining the figures of trade statistics in regard to our balance of payments problem with European countries in 1957. With all the countries with whom we trade, we have an import excess. We have an adverse trade balance of £3,000,000 with Western Germany; we have an import excess of £3.6 million from the Netherlands; there is an import excess of over £2,000,000 from Belgium; and from Finland we have an import excess of £2.2 million. These are the countries upon which we should be concentrating, either by reducing our imports from them or by increasing our exports to them. Nothing is being done in that regard.

Let us look at countries behind the Iron Curtain. We have an import excess from Czechoslovakia of £370,000 worth of goods and last year we exported only £160,000 worth to that country. We imported £500,000 worth of goods last year from East Germany, but we sold nothing to that country. We imported £300,000 worth of goods from Russia and our exports to Russia were nil. We imported £151,000 worth of goods from China and we exported little over £1,000 worth to China.

Mr. Haughey

You do not want to trade with China.

Mr. McQuillan

If we are to import goods into Ireland from any country in the world, we should be prepared to export goods to that country; otherwise, we are just a bunch of hypocrites. This one-way traffic of goods into the country has left us with this disequilibrium in the balance of payments, and we are doing nothing about trade with the countries upon which we should be concentrating. Instead of that, we have our so-called representatives flying to America, tripping over each other going to America. The spoils must be good over there when they are so anxious to go, but we see very little in the way of concrete results arising out of their weekly, monthly and yearly trips.

With regard to our trade with Europe, I have here a quotation from the Irish Press of Monday last, a statement made by Mr. Jan Kortenhorst, Secretary of the Netherlands-Ireland Institute. This gentleman stated:—

"‘Little Europe' could become important markets for Irish products if only Irish businessmen and industrialists would do some on the spot market research. Irish industry is leaving unused many fine opportunities."

We imported £4.5 million worth of goods from Holland last year and we exported to Holland less than £1,000,000 worth of goods. Here we have a Dutch official telling us, so to speak, that Irish industrialists and businessmen do not think it worth while to solve this disequilibrium in that balance of payments by increasing our exports to Holland.

These are the very same gentlemen for whom more concessions are given in this Budget over and above what they got in last year's Budget. Other sections of the community do not get the same help as these gentlemen get, while all they do is to sit calmly behind tariff walls and make no attempt to go into the export market. They have received this aid to tempt them to go into the export market, and for years they have been receiving it at the expense of the farmers and other sections of the community. It has not been a success.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce has been flying to Paris about once a fortnight trying to solve the problems connected with free trade. If free trade comes into operation, what can he do with industrialists and others, who have opportunities at the present time to go into the export market, and yet are doing nothing about it? Does it mean that we will have to erect further barriers of some description in order to give protection to these gentlemen who have had the benefit of protection here for years? The country has been told for months back that the Free Trade Area is about to come into being. The farming community, the business community and all other sections have been discussing it at length —will it be good for us, will it be bad for us, what effect will it have on the various sections of the community? Though we talk about it, we are not prepared to put ourselves in a position to export to these countries. If our businessmen and industrialists woke up, we could reduce this import excess from Europe alone by £20,000,000 by exporting goods to these European countries. When we have a responsible official telling us that these businessmen will not bother their heads about the European export market, it is time the Government did something about it.

I have no criticism to make of looking for trade in the United States. I do not want to be taken as antagonistic towards looking for trade outlets there, but I believe we should concentrate on looking for more important outlets at the present time. America is looking for a jumping-off ground here for the European market; yet, we are running over to America looking for a market there for our goods, when we have an immediate market available to us in Europe for many of the goods concerned. We are not prepared to spend money to develop European markets. I asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce recently whether the Irish Government, or our industrialists, were prepared to exhibit at the International Fair in Brussels at which 90 nations have stands. The Minister's answer was that they were not because it was too expensive.

We have a little exhibition under the aegis of the Council of Europe, but we have no separate stand of our own among the 90 nations in that exhibition in Brussels, and it is into that area that we hope to be channelling our goods within the next four or five years, if the European Free Trade Area comes into operation. Yet, while we are ignoring that market, an Irish trade stand is on the way to America. We can spend plenty of money on publicity in America and send over stands that cost a great deal of money to attract American buyers. We can afford to do that in America and we cannot afford to do it in Brussels, which is nearer home and where we would be vitally concerned if the Free Trade Area comes into operation.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce said that we could not afford to spend the money in Brussels, but not so many miles away we could afford £250,000 on an Embassy, in Paris. Now, these are the people, these industrialists and business firms, who say that they are getting no incentive and no help through the Budget. One would surely imagine that they would be satisfied and be thankful to Fianna Fáil for the hand-out given to them every year. Now, however, they have the audacity to criticise the various Governments for digging too deeply into credits, saying that too much money is being spent by the Government and that there is not enough left for these private enterprises, industrialists and businessmen.

We have the Association of Chambers of Commerce of Ireland submitting a warning to the Minister for Finance in which they tell him that it is to be regretted that Government expenditure has continued to increase and no attempt has been made to curb it. The suggestion is that the Government is taking too much money for its own uses, for capital and current expense accounts, and that there is no money left for the industrial and business sections of the community. It is only fair that we should have it on record what the position is in regard to credit.

In 1957, the Irish banks advanced loans to the extent of £157,000,000. Here is a break-down of that figure. The gentlemen to whom I have referred, the business and chamber of commerce group and the industrial group, got £20,000,000 out of that advance. Retailers got £19.6 million; wholesalers £17.2 million and other businesses, industrial, trade, etc., got £11.7 million. The stockbrokers received £3.6 million, so that the business and industrial section alone got over 50 per cent. of the credit cake, if I might describe it as such. Out of that £157,000,000, the farmers got credit only to the extent of £17,000,000 while the local authorities and public bodies got only £8,000,000.

I cannot understand why the argument is put forward by these interests that the Government is taking too much money for national development purposes. The biggest portion of the credit advances goes to the private individual, whether he be in the retail, wholesale or industrial trade. They are getting the biggest part and not alone that, but they are getting facilities from the Government as well, in the shape of protection in various fields. I do not think they have anything to "crib" about. As a matter of fact, the tragedy all along the line is that the Government, in order to reduce unemployment and slow down the rate of emigration, is not utilising enough money, or taking enough money for capital development purposes.

Only the State, through a planned economy, put into operation over a period of years, can hope to solve the emigration and unemployment problems. Leaving those major twin evils for solution by the private enterprise section of our community is only going to mean more unemployment and more emigration, because the private individual does not give a damn about the man who has to emigrate. His sole aim is to make money any way he can. The dog-eat-dog mentality of the private enterprise individual concerned here has helped to increase emigration over the years. These are the people who cry out for freedom. It is not freedom in the general sense of the word that they want, in order to put their talents and money at the disposal of the State, but freedom to exploit and plunder and rob. Not content with the freedom they have, they whine for State help in order to bolster up this crumbling private economy.

Two other sections received benefits under this Budget and both have been referred to already. Just in passing, let me make a comment on the cinema tax. The Minister in reply to me on the day the Financial Resolution was moved said that he hoped that the handing back of this £50,000 to the film renters would result in improved pictures for this country. Mark you, it is not the small picture house that is to get the benefit of this £50,000; it is the renters. We all know that the people who bring in films to this country are a tight little ring and they bring in the pictures that are given to them. They have no say and no control whatever over the type of picture that comes in. There will be no improvement whatever in the type or standard of films coming in here as a result of this £50,000 which is to go back to Rank & Co. and other combines.

The tragedy of it is that these gentlemen who have their headquarters outside the State are able to bring pressure to bear on the State, on the basis that, if they do not get relief, they will throw the ushers and other employees out of work. Thus, the trade unions are dragged into the row and the trade unions are used to bolster up the arguments put forward by these combines which have their headquarters outside the State. Trade unions do not see any further than their noses in these things because they are prepared, in order to meet the immediate necessities, to sacrifice long-term planning. There is no need whatever to reduce the employment content as a result of the alleged decreasing numbers who attend the cinemas. The British have a problem as far as television is concerned. The British have a recognised television show. There are two units functioning in Britain. These have provided serious competition as far as the cinemas are concerned. Such a problem does not obtain here except, perhaps, in Dublin but the Minister said it was the small picture house down the country which was suffering the loss through other forms of entertainment. What other forms of entertainment are down the country now which have come in in the past few years? The only new form of entertainment that I know of is where you have people discussing what they would like to do with the politicians of this House.

The distillers are another group who have got £25,000 to help them to develop the export of Irish whiskey. Only a couple of years ago I had a motion tabled in the House in connection with Irish whiskey. Deputy MacEntee and other members of the Fianna Fáil Government castigated the distillers in this House for their lack of initiative and for the fact that they had, eight or nine years pre-war, an opportunity to go into the American market and refused to do so.

The argument put forward by Fianna Fáil was that the distillers deserved no help but should be forced, out of their own resources, to get into an export market. Two of the leading distillers in this country were told by a responsible individual in the American Government that, when prohibition ended in America, Irish whiskey would get first preference entering America over all other whiskey. The two main Irish distillers said to the Americans: "We are quite content. We are finding it hard to meet the home market in Ireland. We do not want any development in America."

What happened? The Scotch distillers, who showed initiative, enterprise and go-ahead methods, got into the American market with the result that to-day the export of Scotch whiskey is worth £40,000,000. What is the position here? In this debate I shall not deal in any detail with the matter, but I shall tell the House the position with regard to our next door neighbour.

In 1957 we exported 32,000 gallons of whiskey to Britain and we imported from Britain 68,000 gallons. In other words, we imported Scotch whiskey to the extent of twice the value of the Irish whiskey we exported to Britain. What will the £25,000 which has been given to Córas Tráchtála do? Will that expand or increase the whiskey sales? The value of the 32,000 gallons of whiskey we exported to Britain is only £53,000, while the value of the Scotch whiskey that came in here—the 68,000 gallons—is worth £174,000. In other words, we are sending the whiskey out in bulk. We are sending the whiskey to Britain, not bottled, but in casks. In addition to that, the whiskey we send to Britain comes back here as Scotch whiskey perhaps five or six years afterwards. That cannot be denied.

Not one drop of Irish whiskey should leave this country except in a sealed bottle and carrying the stamp of the Bureau of Standards. We will not get co-operation and initiative from the distillers in this matter. The taxpayer is asked to give £25,000 to them now to help them do something they should be doing for years. If public money is to be handed over to the distillers, we should have some say with regard to the distilling industry. It it too bad to have the ratepayers' money handed over to these people to develop a trade without some control being exercised over it.

The main thing which is lacking over the years is a co-ordinated monetary and economic policy. We have gone on here year after year on a higgledy-piggledy basis—on the basis of getting over this Budget each year and postponing the thought of next year's Budget until we come up against it. There is no idea of carrying out a policy for the welfare or future of the country. We have no sound basis or long-term planning whatever. We worship at some shrine that is described as private enterprise.

The people who speak on behalf of the private enterprise idea have not a clue as to what it really means. We are 50 years behind time. Even in Britain the most conservative groups have shed ideas that are in full operation here at the moment. They had to lose them in Britain. With world trade and the integration of economic policies which must come about in the world, there is no room for this outlook of every man for himself. There must be planning and control and control and planning can only be exercised by the State.

It is this lack of planning which has left the country at the moment at the mercy of people like the present Minister for Lands, who comes in here with his talk about gimmicks. Everybody who is not in Fianna Fáil is accused of using gimmicks. The gimmicks I have heard during the past few years have been such gimmicks as: "Let us get cracking. Trust Dev. Put them out!" Those gimmicks or catch-cries have been successfully used by Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the inter-Party Government over a long number of years. They have been used successfully to hoodwink the electorate.

I must say that in the past few years there has been a tremendous change of feeling in the electorate. They are really realising the position now. The danger is that their anger and dissatisfaction will be channelled into undemocratic lines of protest, perhaps. We have had here a surfeit of this type of propaganda: "Prosperity is round the corner; get over the next hill." That type of talk has brought the country to the brink of economic and social disaster. That type of catch-cry to which I have referred has helped to change Governments but it has not helped to change any approach to economic problems.

Last night, when listening to some of the speakers from Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil, I thought there was some hope they were beginning to realise that the heat is on and that the people are no longer prepared to tolerate the old war cry of: "Where were you in 1916 or 1922?" I thought they were beginning to realise that those men who 30 years ago were soldiers and who proved that they were good soldiers and patriots in that regard, were completely inefficient when it came to the administration of a country's affairs. Their efforts in the social field and in the economic field have left this country in such a position that it will be a very hard task to put it on its feet. One sincere and patriotic gesture could be made, however, at this stage, because they have been reeking with pseudo-patriotism for the past 30 years—that is, that the leaders of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael should get together or get out.

Mr. Haughey

The test which should be applied to this Budget is whether or not, as an instrument of policy, it contributes anything worth while to the solution of our fundamental, interrelated problems, those of unemployment and emigration. Our difficulty is to secure such an increase of economic activity as will involve the full employment of our resources and provide a livelihood for all our people at home. That state of affairs can be brought about only by achieving a very substantial, continuing increase in the volume of productive investment. That is our objective and the aim of our policy. No other objective or policy makes any sort of sense. The debate on this Budget, in order to be profitable and constructive, should be confined to the examination of how the Budget stands up to that test.

Broadly speaking, there are two separate ways in which the Government by its actions can influence the level of economic activity. In the first instance, it can itself directly undertake various forms of economic activity, particularly in the capital expenditure field. This sort of activity in our case is carried out mainly by the various Government Departments and by what are commonly known as the State companies, that is, Bord na Móna, the E.S.B., C.I.E., and all the rest of them. This method is, of course, the quickest and most direct way in which the Government can, by increasing or reducing its activities, immediately affect the general level of economic activity, employment and production.

There is a second way in which the Government can influence the general level of economic activity, and here it sets out to create the climate and conditions within which the other sectors of the economy can be encouraged to enlarge their activities or can, if the Government so desires, be forced to reduce them. In the second case, the Government does not participate itself, but by various means it creates a situation whereby it influence the volume of activity of the other participants.

In relation to this second method which I have mentioned, that of creating the conditions and climate in which the private sector of the economy operates, the intention and policy of the Government and the Minister for Finance are clear and distinct. In the 1957 Budget, again in this current Budget and in a number of measures which were passed during the year, there is clearly set out the means which have been designed to create the most favourable possible conditions for an increase in economic activity, production and investment by the private sector of the economy.

In the first instance, we have the very substantial tax incentives to production which have been incorporated in our tax legislation. The Control of Manufactures Acts are being revised to procure increased foreign participation in industrial activity. There has been the very important legislation by which the resources of the Industrial Credit Company have been increased. Very considerable funds have been placed at the disposal of that company to enable it to assist in every way the expansion of industrial production.

The harmful effect which certain of the import levies had on production has been removed and hire-purchase restrictions which were tending to have an adverse effect on economic activity have also been removed. Again, even though it is possibly a small thing, during the year we had the Trustee (Authorised Investments) Bill which makes its own small contribution towards creating this climate to which I refer.

The most significant thing of all in this connection, is of course the fact that the Minister in his Budget has been able to hold the line, as he says, against increased taxation. There could not be, to my mind, any greater incentive than that to the private sector of the economy to embark on programmes of expansion and development. The most desirable inducement we can offer to a businessman is to guarantee him a stable level of taxation, and the Minister has done this. He has imposed no new taxes and, in fact, he has gone on record as indicating that, in his opinion, the level of taxation is high enough. Clearly that is a very substantial inducement to private individuals to embark on programmes of expansion and development knowing that that situation will prevail. I am quite convinced that during the coming financial year a very substantial beneficial result will be forthcoming from that decision and those statements of the Minister.

Over all, therefore, the Government and the Minister have very successfully directed their measures towards creating excellent conditions for progress and development in the private sector of the economy. It would not be too optimistic to hope for a fairly spectacular advance by that sector during the coming financial year.

There remains the other way I mentioned in which the Government can affect the level of economic activity. That is by its own direct intervention in economic activity. For a number of years now, capital expenditure by the Government has been running at around the sum of £40,000,000 a year. This amount is made up of the amounts of voted moneys spent by the different Departments on capital projects and by the capital expenditure of the State companies.

There has been some public comment and discussion on this matter. This activity of the Government has been subjected to two main criticisms. Firstly, it is stated that the national debt is becoming too large. The other criticism is that the volume of capital activity by the State is interfering to an unnecessary degree with the private sector in procuring its capital requirements. We will be in a position to pronounce much more authoritatively on that particular aspect when the general report of the Capital Investment Advisory Committee is available and when it is used as a basis for discussion with the World Bank officials in June, as mentioned by the Minister in his Budget statement. I am hopeful that we shall get some very valuable results and information out of those discussions. We shall be able to talk a lot more authoritatively afterwards on our whole capital set-up.

In the meantime I should like to make a few remarks about these two criticisms. The national debt for the last three or four years has been going up by a figure of approximately £30,000,000 a year and the gross State liabilities at the 31st March, 1958, were £411,000,000. It is important to get these two figures into proper perspective. As Deputy McQuillan said, the gentlemen who occupy exalted positions in our various Chambers of Commerce issue learned and weighty statements about these figures. As I say, the gross total of our national liabilities is £411,000,000. It is a very substantial sum but we must compare that with the national income.

The national income for 1957—it was not by any means a good year and we hope the national income in 1958 will be considerably increased—was £468,000,000. So far therefore our total national debt—that is the gross national debt as I am leaving out of account the internal national assets— has not reached the extent of being equal to one year's national income. So long as that position obtains there is no need for any crisis approach to the problem.

To service this national debt each year costs us, I have calculated, a net sum of £7,000,000. The gross cost of the service of the national debt is £18,000,000. But then, to be set off against that, there is considerable State income directly related to the national debt. I include the land annuities in that because the figure for the Land Bonds is included in the gross total. I calculate that the net charge to the revenue each year to service our national debt is £7,000,000. That is approximately 6 per cent. of our total expenditure on Supply Services. That puts the position in its proper perspective and shows there is really not any crisis level about the national capital position. Certainly, I would object to any suggestion that the State capital invested year by year or the gross total of our national debt is anything like at danger level.

Another comparison which I would make is this. It is quite true there is no validity whatever in quantitative comparisons between our financial position and that of Great Britain. But there is some validity in making this sort of comparison. The service of our national debt in any year takes up about 6 per cent. of our total expenditure on Supply Services. It is very difficult to make a calculation but it seems to me that the figure in Great Britain is about 12 per cent. I just mention that to indicate that, while we must keep the problem before our minds all the time and constantly watch the level of the national debt and the cost to the revenue each year of servicing that debt, there is no need to embark on any retrenchment programme at this stage.

Again, the statements which we have been given show that capital borrowing by the Exchequer in the coming year will be approximately £36,000,000. There is also public discussion and certain criticism of that level of Government spending. But we must compare that with the fact that the current savings for the financial year should be in the neighbourhood of from £60,000,000 to £70,000,000. When you set the figure for Government borrowing against that figure, I do not think it is at all excessive.

I am quite convinced that there is no evidence whatever that State borrowing is preventing the private sector from borrowing sufficient for its needs. The difficulty is that the private sector is not borrowing enough for its needs, apart altogether from the activities of the State. The very disappointing feature of our economic scene is the almost complete absence of private activity in the capital market. Our problem is, not to get the State to borrow less and spend less, but to try to encourage the private sector to match its borrowing to the borrowing of the State, and, if possible, to surpass the level of State borrowing. There is no evidence that one is interfering with the other.

I should like to mention one aspect of this question of State borrowing. I see the British Chancellor of the Exchequer has decided to continue, for a further year, the practice whereby the Exchequer does all the borrowing and the various nationalised industries have recourse to the Exchequer for their capital needs. The reasons which are responsible for that do not apply here to any great extent. The principal reason is that the Chancellor can have a more effective monetary policy. The advantages of applying such a scheme here would be that we would know what our capital requirements for all State purposes would be and we would have only the flotations by the Government for State purposes rather than have the different State companies trying to float their own loans.

In addition, there is the advantage that the State is naturally able to borrow on more advantageous terms. We should, in managing our capital affairs, give serious thought to deciding, as a matter of definite policy, what would be the manner in which we would raise capital for State and semi-State purposes in the future.

I notice that the Legal Tender Note Fund has been building up a substantial amount of its assets in the form of gold and dollar holdings. In that connection, there seems, at the moment, on the world scene, to be considerable fear that the price of gold is going to be raised. The various Central Banks would appear to be trying to convert as much as possible of their dollar holdings into gold against such a possibility. No doubt our monetary authorities have that movement under observation and are prepared to act, if necessary.

I am convinced that one of the big difficulties in our task of securing an expansion of economic activity is the lack of general day-to-day business capital. All of us have had experience of the way in which the Irish business firm is preoccupied with the question of financial and credit matters. I have always been struck by the completely different approach you find to this matter in English business. English managements make their plans and never seem to have to consider the financial aspect. Their difficulties are all difficulties of planning and production; they are all with regard to technical matters. They seem to be in the happy position of being able to take the financial side for granted.

There is a complete difference of approach in Irish business. Irish business firms are all the time preoccupied with making available the capital necessary for their day-to-day arrangements. The difficulty is to know what to do about it. There is no doubt that if there is any specific project for industrial development of any size the capital for that development should be forthcoming from one of the financial institutions set up for that purpose by the Government. It is the day-to-day capital for ordinary business expansion that is lacking to a very considerable extent in this country.

The figures given by Deputy McQuillan for bank advances have a definite bearing on that problem. I was calculating that, between farming and agriculture, and mining and manufacturing activity, there is only 27 per cent. of bank advances available at the moment. That seems to be a fantastically low figure. Without saying to anyone that you have got to increase the volume of bank advances, it ought to be possible to change the emphasis and the distribution of bank credit as between one source and another.

It is probably premature at this stage to talk of the difficulties which would arise if we were to procure the big volume of expansion in economic activity which is required, but it is as well that we should keep in mind that problem in making our plans. It has been the experience of every country which was in the same situation as we are in, and which has planned a deliberate policy of economic expansion to get out of its difficulties, that it has run into serious balance of payments difficulties. That has happened even to countries that planned along the best orthodox principles. In each case, the internal expansion was accompanied by serious balance of payments difficulties. That is something we must keep in mind all the time. It means that we must, in all our planning, lay the principal emphasis on the building up of our export trade. In this connection, the Government, in the past year, have taken some very definite steps forward.

There is considerably increased activity by Córas Tráchtála. Most important of all, of course, is the setting up of the Agricultural Exports Committee, which has got seriously down to the real national problem at the moment of trying to sell our agricultural surplus. I understand that that committee has set up various sub-committees to deal with the different aspects and that they are all busily getting down to work. It is certainly a very desirable development.

Tourism, of course, more than any other single industry, offers us an opportunity for quick expansion in our external receipts. The main contribution which we can make to that industry at the moment, of course, is to increase the bed accommodation in hotels. The time is opportune for an all-out drive to increase hotel accommodation. I say that for two reasons. In the first place, the beds are needed for the tourist industry; secondly, the building industry is in the doldrums at the moment and this is one way in which the slack could be taken up to some extent. From every point of view, it would be an excellent investment if we could have very greatly increased activity in the matter of providing hotel accommodation.

My argument, therefore, is that this Budget contains a judicious mixture of the two ways of Government activity which I mentioned originally. The level of State activity is continued at the level of previous years on the capital expenditure side, and there is no falling off. All the various projects of a capital nature are being continued at the previous levels. The Budget's main contribution is that it will create the climate and conditions in which the private sector is called upon and encouraged to forge ahead with its plans for development and expansion and we can, with a certain amount of confidence, expect considerable progress in that sphere in the coming year.

In conclusion, I should like to say that, although the Minister has been only a very short while in office, comparatively, he has wrought a very distinct and remarkable change on the public finances. It is true to say that there is an entirely new look on the public finances. It appears to me that the Minister has brought a fresh mind to bear on all the different aspects of the financial structure and has stimulated both thought and action on various problems, which was not so before. That is the most encouraging single feature of our present position. It is obvious to everybody that there is a new approach to the financial establishment. As an instance of this, there is the very important Industrial Credit Company legislation and there is the fact that the commercial banks have taken the completely new step which they have taken in relation to that company. We have joined the Monetary Fund and the World Bank and there is hope that the developments that will take place in that regard will be of considerable value to us. The inauguration of the issue of Exchequer Bills has been a very welcome innovation.

It is quite clear to me that, on all fronts, the Minister is making a determined attempt to adjust the whole financial establishment, to bring it more in line with our needs and requirements. In so far as he is doing that and in so far as he is obviously successful in his efforts, as shown by a number of important developments during the past year, the Minister deserves the congratulations of the House.

Mr. Rooney

I cannot be as happy about the economic conditions of the country and the results of the 1957 Budget as Deputy Haughey is because I see that approximately 60,000 people were driven out of the country in the past 12 months, owing to the economic conditions which were brought about at that time. The number of wage-earners has fallen substantially. Having regard to these two results of the Budget of last year, one must decide whether it has been good for the nation or a wrong step.

This Budget repeats the sickening dose of the 1957 Budget in every aspect and from that dose we can expect results worse than the results of the 1957 Budget. There will probably be a greater flow of emigration, a higher number of unemployed and a smaller number of wage-earners during the coming 12 months. There is no reason for assuming that this Budget could bring any improvement on the conditions obtaining last year. It must be remembered that the 1957 financial year could have been considered against the great improvement in trading figures. Already the trading figures for 1958 are falling and they will fall still further before the next Budget. When the Minister comes next year with his Budget, he will have a story to tell of a fall in the trading figures. Already there has been a fall in trade of £1,000,000 per month since January. The relaxation of the import levies, which has encouraged an increase in imports, and the relaxation of hire-purchase restrictions, which strengthens the purchasing power of those who wish to purchase by instalments, particularly those who wish to purchase non-essential goods, taken together, will help to make a sad story for the Minister for Finance when he comes to read his Budget speech next year. This Budget is the product of an old Fianna Fáil Party which has grown mentally sick, tired and lazy. That is the feeling amongst the public outside—that we have a lazy, good-for-nothing Government, prepared to sit tight and do nothing.

Deputy Haughey has mentioned certain items of legislation put through the House during the last 12 months. Some of those items were on the books before the change of Government took place last year. Deputy Haughey also held out great hope for the financial recovery of the country by means of the inducements offered in that legislation. We must ask ourselves whether in fact inducements, under our conditions, are sufficient to bring about an early recovery and an improvement in the general economy of the country. I feel that inducements are not enough and that a positive policy, a policy of adventure directed towards a solution of the most pressing problems of the present time, would be a better approach than mere inducements offered by legislation. I feel that inducements must await the result of efforts to attract interest towards these various problems.

It seems that the Fianna Fáil Party are content to rest on the laurels gained in the general election of 1957, by the fraudulent promises of work and prosperity which they held out. Conditions in 1956 were very difficult owing to international uncertainty caused by the flare-up along the Suez Canal and in the Middle East generally. Fianna Fáil took advantage of the conditions which existed at that time. They offered the people work and prosperity against that background of hardship and uncertainty which originated in the Middle East. Apparently the Fianna Fáil Party are not prepared to try any solution for emigration and unemployment. It is obvious they will make no attempt to do so during the coming year, if we are to be guided by any mention of policy. There was very little mention of policy in the Minister's very brief speech. It was a lazy effort and the people feel that the Minister and his colleagues might have tried a little better and a little harder.

The trading figures last year were better than they have been for many years. There are several explanations for that. If we are to judge the general attitude of the public towards the policy of Fianna Fáil, whether that policy is enterprising or whether it denotes a positive attitude, we can look at one simple point which was very obvious on Budget day. The gallery was half empty. Over 80 Deputies were not asked for tickets on Budget day. Did that ever happen before? The usual experience of a Deputy on Budget day is that he has a dozen people asking for tickets for entry to the Gallery. It is obvious the people have become disheartened. They realise there is a strong majority in this House on the Government side, and they realise that their protests outside the House, and the protests of Deputies inside the House, against any policy which Fianna Fáil chooses to implement contrary to the public interest, will bear no fruit. That explains why the Gallery was half empty last week.

The Budget is a notice to quit for another 60,000 people during the coming 12 months. It is a warning to the people who are seeking employment at the present time, and to the registered unemployed, that 80,000 people on an average will be registered as unemployed during the coming year. Parents in all walks of life are becoming alarmed about the future for their children. It is a general topic of conversation. No matter what sphere or class to which these parents belong, whether it be the middle-income class, the wage-earning class or the professional class, they are all worried about the future for their children. They see very little hope in this country if the existing attitude is to be pursued; if a policy is not implemented which will bring hope and prospects for the growing generation. The lack of opportunity is growing according as the population dwindles.

The lack of opportunity is growing also by reason of the fact that the number of people earning wages is falling. There is no assurance of future stability. That is what parents are looking for in their efforts to set their children on good walks of life. Leading churchmen have been compelled to come into the national picture and give expression to their views, showing that they are particularly frightened by the ever-dwindling population. They wonder when an end will be put to it. They want to know when a policy will be implemented which will give some hope of stability and some hope for a continuance of the Irish nation.

Similarly leaders of various national organisations are critical of the careless attitude of the Government towards many urgent problems in relation to national development. All these people are outside the political field, but they see more clearly than the man in the street where the policy of the present Government is leading, and what results can be expected from it. Our people are indebted to these leaders of public opinion, both churchmen and the leaders of national organisations, for taking an interest and trying to find a solution for the real problems which exist to-day.

The Minister made no reference in his speech to the many problems facing the country at present. The attitude of the Government towards the twin evils of emigration and unemployment seems to be purely negative. They do not wish to recognise the existence of these evils because, if they did, they would be compelled to seek a solution for them. It is true that 1,000,000 young people emigrated from this country since the first shot of the Civil War was fired by Fianna Fáil members. It stands out as a wanton disgrace to us and it seems that the dispute is to continue. It seems that the same spiteful attitude in relation to the general public is to be continued by the Fianna Fáil Party, instead of some attempt to meet conditions as they exist at present.

The 1,000,000 emigrants who have left the country since 1922 suffered for the internal political strife of that time. That strife was prompted, we know now, by greed, spite and jealousy camouflaged by the bluff attitude towards Partition which has long since been exposed. In the last ten years we have seen how the Republican Party, as the Fianna Fáil Party were known at that time, behaved in relation to Republican status.

I want to refer to a problem which will affect the citizens of Dublin and Dublin County immediately. This problem is a result of the bungling which has arisen from the establishment of a State monopoly in transport. The people were notified that a 5 per cent. increase in provincial bus fares and freight-rates is to be imposed by C.I.E. When the revenue is considered, this 5 per cent. increase is very substantial but a greater hardship will affect Dublin City and the fringe areas of the county. That is that the minimum fare of 2d. is to be increased to 3d.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is nothing in the Budget about this increase.

Mr. Sweetman

But is it not another Budget all the same?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are not discussing it at the moment.

Mr. Sweetman

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Last year's Budget may not be discussed.

Mr. Sweetman

The Minister for Health discussed last year's Budget and the 1951 Budget at great length.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Not in such great detail.

Mr. Sweetman

I have not seen the Official Report, but the Irish Press gives a great deal of detail. Perhaps Pravda slipped up on this occasion.

Mr. Rooney

I should also like to say that there is no change in the price of petrol and diesel oil this year. It is up 6d. a gallon compared with early 1957. These are some of the things which Fianna Fáil gave to the people last year. Last November, they were asked in Dublin North Central how they liked it. They got an answer which showed that compared with 8,000 who voted for Fianna Fáil in early 1957, just over 3,000 voted for them in November, 1957, which reveals that in the period between the Budget and November, Fianna Fáil lost 5,000 votes in that constituency alone and they will find the same losses in other constituencies.

Mr. Moher

Do not make a prophecy.

Mr. Rooney

I am prepared to make a prophecy and the people are prepared to give a decision, if they get a chance. It is probable that they will lose 5,000 votes in Galway. Perhaps, that will bring it nearer to Deputy Moher.

Mr. Sweetman

That is, when they have been able to sort out who will be their candidate and when the war over that has finished.

Mr. Rooney

Let us turn to the picture in relation to unemployment. The year 1956 was the year which Fianna Fáil took advantage of in order to play the old political game amongst the people at the time of the general election, but if we examine the figures we will find that at this time in 1956 there were 71,000 people on the unemployment register. At the same time this year, that is, the start of this month, there were 78,000 people unemployed; in other words, there were an extra 7,000 people registered as unemployed early in April, 1958, compared with early in April, 1956.

In addition to those extra 7,000 people on the register of unemployed seeking work, many were driven to emigrate. In fact, that explains why emigration in 1957 reached a record figure. When the unemployed who had been promised so much early in 1957 discovered, after the Budget of 1957 and when the Fianna Fáil Government had settled down, that there was no prospect for them and that the promise of work which had been believed was not fulfilled, they took to the boat. They were driven out particularly because of the steep rise in the cost of living brought about by the Budget of 1957. They just could not exist and their people could not maintain them, so they had to fly from the country.

When referring to the loss of 5,000 votes in Dublin North Central, when the policy of Fianna Fáil had ample time to be implemented and when the trading figures had brought about considerable improvement, I should like to mention that during that election campaign a loudspeaker was going around the constituency saying that a vote for Cregan—I think that was his name—was a vote for "Dev." People were being asked to vote for "Dev" as Taoiseach in the name of his candidate in Dublin North Central. The answer was a drop of 5,000 votes.

Surely we could expect that, when we realise that the Taoiseach does not know that the cost of living has risen. About a month ago, he stated that there was no rise in the cost of living, but if we examine the figures, we will find that in this bad year of 1956, out of which so much capital was made by Fianna Fáil, the rise in the cost of living was only two points compared with 9.4 points since the Budget of 1957, and it is still rising. That is the type of dishonesty the public are faced with and that is what created a great measure of public disgust and a cynical attitude towards public representatives, many of whom are doing their best and devoting very much of their time to public work. We cannot blame the people when we find that they are being double-crossed by the Government as they have been in a very barefaced way since early 1957, when so much was promised and so little given.

When we examine our economic position and the problems of to-day, we must remember that the Fianna Fáil Party have been approximately 22 years in office now, if not more, and they must bear the lion's share of responsibility for the deplorable conditions existing at the present time. It is obvious now that the Cosgrave policy for the country in the early years after the foundation of this State was the type of policy suited to our economy and to the country. It would have been better to make haste slowly than to create a flash in the pan and create so many headaches for the people in general, as the Fianna Fáil Party did when they came into office in 1932.

One often asks the question: how long will the people, particularly the young people, tolerate this policy of drift, this policy of sitting tight? One asks the question whether they will be driven to a situation where we will have a violent revolt amongst the younger section of our people who see no other solution for the problems facing them, when they wish to live in this country and get a living here.

I was very much impressed, and I think the country has been, too, by the outspoken speeches which we have heard and read from Dr. Lucey. We are lucky in Ireland to have a man of his calibre and brilliance to speak out and give us such leadership and such an attitude towards the problems of the nation when the Government are not prepared to do it. Dr. Lucey made it clear that he had no desire to interfere in the political affairs of the country.

Mr. Moher

You cannot draw the line.

Mr. Rooney

Deputy Moher ought to know and appreciate Dr. Lucey as much as any Deputy. The nation is indebted to Dr. Lucey for his outspoken remarks. He has shown the danger signals for all to see and it is to be hoped that the Government will heed those danger signals.

Mr. K. Egan

He did not approve of the prize bonds.

Mr. Rooney

I know he did not. As I was saying before I was interrupted, Dr. Lucey pointed out that he had no desire to interfere in the political affairs of the country but he hoped that the leaders of public opinion in the field of politics would grapple with the various problems which were a worry to him and which were obvious to the people in general. We are very lucky to have men like Dr Lucey who can see problems so clearly and point the way for us if we are prepared to heed him and do something about those problems.

On this matter of public pronouncements, could anyone have read a more disgraceful production than the speech of the Minister for Health published in last week's Sunday Press? It appeared in an abbreviated form in other Sunday papers. I would like to ask the Minister for Health if he considers he has done a national service by that type of speech or if it was made purely for political Party advantage, to strengthen the political position of his Party. Was he putting the Party before the country? Anyone who read that tirade in an unbiassed manner would ask the question: to what purpose was that speech made? Was it to give guidance or to be of advantage to the nation or was it purely and simply to strengthen the weakening links in the political chain of Fianna Fáil?

If we examine the figures, too, we shall notice that the number of farm labourers has fallen considerably during the past 12 months. When we consider the importance of people working on the land and the importance of agriculture to the nation, we must become alarmed when we see the number of workers on the land growing fewer, since the basis of our economy is agriculture.

The people were stung by Deputy Moher's Party— that is what really happened—with their false promises.

Mr. Rooney

When the inter-Party Government, and Deputy Sweetman as Minister for Finance, discovered that it was necessary to correct our trading position one of the first things they did was to introduce the special import levies. These levies were imposed on goods of a non-essential character so that persons who wanted to spend money importing luxury goods would have to pay a penalty. The result of these levies was that people were discouraged in the purchase of non-essential goods and immediately it was obvious that our trading position would be remedied within a reasonable time. In fact, it was estimated by Deputy Sweetman at the time that our economic position would be rectified in September, 1957, and he was not far wrong, when one considers the very good trading figures which resulted from the full year of 1957.

These import levies brought in revenue which was applied for capital purposes. When the present Government came into office many of the levies were taken off or abolished and some of them reduced. We also found another and a very wrong approach regarding these levies. We found that the penalty imposed on certain kinds of imported goods in the form of a special levy was replaced by a permanent tariff and that tariff is being collected on these goods in a permanent way. We can remember the crocodile tears of Fianna Fáil for the kiddies who want to eat oranges on which an import levy had been applied. The Party won the sympathy of many families when they cried out against the levy on oranges. But when the Fianna Fáil Government came into office they took the levy off the oranges and put a permanent tariff on them. Yet there is no more crying either from Fianna Fáil or from the parents of the children.

The course of recovery in our financial position so far as it took place in 1957 was already set by Deputy Sweetman and the present Government has failed to maintain it by a relaxation of the special import levies and by an easement of the hire-purchase restrictions. We may have a certain situation this year, and I notice that the Minister in his speech recognises that fact. I shall quote him in that connection. He says, as reported at column 604, Volume 167, of the Official Report:—

"Indeed, one of the major uncertainties is whether the American recession will become any wider or deeper. It is our earnest hope that it will not. It will, however, be necessary to watch the balance of payments trend very carefully as the year progresses so that measures may be taken in time to correct any tendency towards an unduly large deficit."

The Minister is already anticipating a deficit, and he is right. I want to know now what he intends to do to keep the trading position as it was in 1957 or as close to that position as possible? Already he has recognised the danger that he may have to take action during the year if there is a tendency—and the tendency is expected—for our external trading figures to get out of balance. It is very probable that the Minister will be compelled once more to adopt the instrument of special levies used very effectively by Deputy Sweetman.

One of the items contributing to our improved financial position is the money contributed to the prize bonds. It seems that these bonds are growing in popularity. The latest issue of prize bonds has shown a very substantial contribution to the fund.

We should have a statement from the Minister regarding the attitude of his Government towards housing. It is difficult to understand the position because some years ago we had Deputy Briscoe pulling the very foundations from beneath housing in the Dublin Corporation. He did so much damage and created such a stoppage at that time that they have not got going properly since.

In the figures given by the Minister, I notice that far less money was given for housing last year than in the previous year when all the noise about housing was going on in the ranks of the Fianna Fáil Party. We now ask what was all the shouting about? Why was there so much talk about housing at that time? Why was there all the talk about housing finances when, in fact, we can see now that more money was provided for housing in the years 1954, 1955 and 1956 than in 1957? There was no shortage of money for housing last year but the housing drive was stopped and was kept at a standstill by the Fianna Fáil Party. It seems they are going to maintain that attitude.

We must not forget, however, that there are approximately 6,000 families in Dublin City not satisfied. Yet, we have this dog-in-the-manger attitude of the Fianna Fáil Party in relation to housing. It is extremely difficult for a family now to qualify for a local authority house. The attitude of Fianna Fáil in relation to housing now seems to be that the money is available, if you can get it. There is the rub. There are very severe tests now in order to qualify for local authority houses. In addition to the 6,000 families requiring houses in Dublin City, at least 15,000 houses are wanted in the country, but the same restrictive attitude is being maintained by the Government in relation to those through the Department of Local Government.

The Minister, in his Budget statement, referred to the maximum increase of 10/- per week allowed to public servants. He said that he told them "to take it or leave it" and, if they decided to put into effect the arbitration machinery to secure the increase to which they were quite properly entitled, he would bring a motion before the Dáil to have the award rejected. That is typical of the attitude of the Government. Because they have a substantial majority here and because for the present, at any rate, until they receive a few more setbacks in by-elections——

Mr. Moher

Is the Deputy looking for Providence to intervene?

Mr. Rooney

No. It will take less than Providence to defeat this Government in due course. The attitude of the Government towards every section of the community is one of "take it or leave it". Whether they are public servants, wage earners, farmers, housewives, hospital patients, or anything else, that is the attitude adopted towards them by this Fianna Fáil Government.

The public generally were expecting an increase of at least 2/6 a week for old age pensioners, especially from a Minister for Finance who had a good tale to tell in 1957, but the Minister and his Government have increased the price of the loaf by 6d. and the lb. of butter by 6d. and the only compensation the old age pensioners got to offset these increases was 1/- per week. All pensioners are agreed that this 1/- per week does not meet the increased cost of bread and butter. Even if we take only one loaf of bread in the week and 1 lb of butter, the 1/- is immediately absorbed. But the old age pensioners have to contend with a rise of 9.4 points——

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Sweetman

The 1/- was worth more then than yours is now.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order! Deputy Rooney.

Mr. Rooney

That was the 1/- that paid for the bridges broken up by Fianna Fáil at that time. The old age pensioners paid for the Fianna Fáil carry-on then all right. The old age pensioners to-day are not getting a square deal. Neither are the assistance classes, nor the widows in receipt of non-contributory pensions. The cost of living has increased by 9.4 points in the past 12 months and these people have to contend with that rise. They have to contend with the decontrol of prices of commodities which do not appear in the list of essential goods in relation to the calculation of the cost of living.

Similarly, the unemployed are finding it very difficult to exist on their present allowances. It would be easier for them to make ends meet, had the prices of bread and butter been kept at their former level instead of being increased by 6d. Prices have increased radically and, at the same time, they have got only a paltry 1/- per week to meet that extra cost of living. The time has come for the Government to put their policy to the test.

Mr. Davern

They did that several times.

Mr. Rooney

Perhaps they will go down now to South Galway, which is traditionally favourable to the Government, and try to pretend to the country generally that, if they get a favourable result, that will reflect the attitude of the country generally. It will not. The people of Dublin City and County——

Mr. Davern

That is a terrible insult to the people of South Galway.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order! Deputy Davern should cease interrupting. Deputy Davern made a speech. He ought to allow other Deputies to do the same.

Mr. W. Murphy

Let him make them in Galway and we will answer them.

Mr. Sweetman

One could not describe what Deputy Davern did last night as making a speech.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Rooney, on the Financial Motion.

Mr. Rooney

The people of Dublin City and County are waiting for an opportunity to change the Government. Whatever about a favourable result here and there for the Government, it is quite certain that Dublin City and County, and indeed the vast majority of constituencies, would change the Government to-morrow if they got the chance. The Government were elected in 1957 mainly by default. It was one of the lowest polls recorded in the history of this State since 1922. The Fianna Fáil Party secured election by default because of the high percentage of voters who did not exercise the franchise. If those people who did not vote in 1957 were given the chance now, they would avail of it. The people who were duped by the Fianna Fáil propaganda in that election—the housewives who thought they would get their husbands back to work, for example—would certainly put the Government out of office to-morrow, if they got the chance. It is up to the Government to give the people that opportunity as soon as possible.

The Minister has budgeted for the current financial year. I know that the result at the end of this year will be worse than last year, particularly in relation to emigration and unemployment. I know also that the trade for this year will not be as good as it was last year because the course was already set last year by Deputy Sweetman before leaving office. The two-year-old cattle—the cattle of 1955 which were exported last year to improve our trading figures—are not there. This year it is probable that we shall not have the same results from our exports as we had last year. Remember that it was on the trading figures of last year that we had a good report in regard to our national finance and that it was not the 1957 Budget that brought about any improvement in the national position. It is obvious, when we consider the main items of unemployment and emigration, that the 1957 Budget should never have been put into effect. Yet, that Budget is being repeated this year.

Mr. Doherty

Listening to the last speaker who, I understand, represents the County Dublin constituency, I was struck by the fact that he seems like the rest of the Fine Gael Party, who are past masters on the accusing side. They cannot get rid of that bad old habit of prophesying and promising. When one remembers the streams of rash promises made by the Coalition Government, the accountant has yet to be born who will plumb the depths of their political bankruptcy.

Deputy Rooney took up a lot of the time of the House in giving an explanation as to why the Gallery was only half empty. In reply, I should say that it was also half full. He has gone as far as to challenge the Government with being lazy and with sitting back since they were elected to office. He says there are several explanations for that but, during the whole course of his speech, he did not give us one genuine reason.

I listened carefully to the Minister's Budget statement and I have examined the Book of Estimates in relation to the finances for the coming year. As a businessman with limited experience, I feel bound to say that it is fundamentally sound. It would be impossible for me to deal with details except in a very long speech which I do not intend to make now.

I cannot believe that the members of the Opposition do not realise where this Budget will lead us and the country. I believe that, after another 12 months of Fianna Fáil Government, there will be fewer crocodile tears and more laughter outside and inside this House. The Fine Gael Party assert that from every point of view this is as bad, as degrading and as harmful a Budget as could be presented by any Government. What political Party will profit from that? I did not think I would ever again hear the former Minister for Finance speak in a loud tone in this House. In describing this Budget he used the word "unimaginative" and he borrowed the word "pedestrian" used by the English critics in relation to the English Budget.

This Government has not the type of schoolboy imagination which the Coalition Government had when faced with the question of the price of tea. They fondly imagined that the price of tea on the world market would come down whereas it increased with the result that they had to borrow over £1,000,000 at a high rate of interest from the banks. Every landlady and every housewife in the country had to pay through the nose for their imagination.

I believe that, in general, the people, and especially business people, will like this Budget because they will know how they stand. People investing money in new enterprises will be able to plan ahead. Two special features in relation to this Budget came to my notice. The first relates to the improvement in industrial and agricultural exports. There was a 9 per cent. increase on the previous year in the last quarter of 1957; the reference is on pages 6 to 7 of the Minister's Budget statement. The second point which struck me forcibly was that we have a reduction of £3,000,000 in current expenditure which shows that the Government are up and doing in matters of taxation.

In addition to the foregoing, increases were given to civil servants, Gardaí, teachers and members of the Army, amounting to £1,500,000. Imagination did not pay our debts or give those people a rise. It did not give us an increase in State aid towards industrial, agricultural or tourist development. The present Government took office in March, 1957, and were expecting to have to face financial difficulties. The situation with which we were confronted was actually far more serious than we had any reason to anticipate.

The last Coalition Budget—that of 1956—closed with a deficit of almost £6,000,000. Up to the change of Government, no hint was given to the public that a deficit of that magnitude was likely to occur. That meant that the taxation imposed by the Coalition Government in their 1956 Budget did not, to the extent of £6,000,000, produce enough money to meet the amount which the Government had to spend on public services in that year. The failure of the Coalition Government to balance the 1956 Budget was responsible for much of the unemployment in that year. Money raised through national loans and other borrowings, which should have gone, and which was intended to go, to investment in capital development projects which would maintain employment, was, instead, diverted to make good the deficiency in ordinary revenue. That revenue deficiency was not the only legacy the Coalition Government left us.

When we took office on the 20th March, 1957, we found that a Book of Estimates, which was prepared and printed but not published, was kept under cover and was calling for £5,000,000 more than was called for in 1956. Allowing for those economies and some additional revenue, last year the total gap between revenue and expenditure which the Government had to face was over £8,000,000. That gap would have had to be faced then by whatever Government was in office. This was not something which had arisen since March 20th, 1957. Every member of the Coalition Government knew at the last general election that a financial situation of that gravity existed, but they carefully suppressed all reference to it and even withheld from the public official documents such as the Book of Estimates, which would have revealed the position.

In the last 12 months of Coalition government, no less than £6,000,000, which could have been used for the financing of productive work, had to be taken from the nation's reserves to fill a Budget deficit. What was the result? We had thousands of men unemployed in the building industry; local authority housing was cut to pieces; the building of schools and hospitals was held up; the small dwellings loan scheme broke down completely; the shortage of money, as a result of the slashing of road grants, caused great unemployment among road workers; the county council land reclamation and farm building schemes were stopped; and rural electrification was slowed down.

The position was clearly expressed at a meeting of the Standing Council of the Irish Vocational Education Association in Dublin on Thursday, 21st February, 1957, a report of which states:

"Members of the council, which represents vocational education committees throughout the country, stated that the proposed cuts would mean a reduction in the money available to individual vocational committees, varying from £1,500 to £10,000... The council unanimously decided to protest in the strongest manner possible against the enforcement of the cuts in grants during the coming year, and stressed that of all the educational services, vocational education was undoubtedly the one which had the most directly stimulating effect on national production, through its close links with agriculture, industry and commerce, as well as its numerous ties with Macra na Feirme, the Irish Country-women's Association, Muintir na Tíre, apprenticeship committees and other organisations."

They expressed their views clearly on the drastic cuts in local authority grants and the effect they had on all those bodies responsible for the running of the country. None of this need have happened.

When the Coalition left office in 1957, they left over 100,000 unemployed and a further 50,000 emigrated. Ireland was in the greatest throes of an economic slump. The Coalition Government also showed, once and for all, that unbalanced Budgets and Budget deficits mean greater unemployment, greater emigration and financial chaos. What then did the leader of the Opposition mean when he said that he left office with a clean sheet? He left office with a Budget deficit of £6,000,000, with an unpublished Book of Estimates which called for a further £5,000,000, with almost 100,000 unemployed and with the country in the throes of an unprecedented economic slump.

I should like to tell the House and the country that the food subsidies were abolished on the recommendation of a picked and skilled team of economic experts selected by the former Minister for Finance, either because he knew his shortcomings or because he did not want the responsibility of the consequences when he realised what those temporary measures—the subsidies—were costing the country.

Deputy Sweetman must have intended to abolish the food subsidies. If he did not, may I put this question to him? Why did he put the country to the expense of a public inquiry by a highly qualified team in order to advise him? The verdict was: the subsidies must go. And those are the Deputies who stand up here and on every platform in the Twenty-Six Counties talking about stability in government and having the cheek to challenge us in regard to alleged false promises made at the last general election.

In his Budget statement, the Minister for Finance referred to the fact that last year the financing of public capital needs was made less difficult by the increase in the country's savings. He also stated that the prize bonds brought in £6.79 million and that they, together with savings certificates and savings banks deposits, had brought in £7.4 million of new savings. Yet I am sorry to say we had one of my own county men, Deputy Blowick, coming out with this statement at column 770, Volume 162, of the Dáil Debates:—

"Our loans were a success on every occasion. We were quite pleased with them. They were better subscribed to by the public, and particularly the small investors, than any loan Fianna Fáil ever floated...

Our loans were always a roaring success. They were an outstanding success—much more so than the loans floated in the past by the Fianna Fáil Minister for Finance, Deputy MacEntee. We always got the support of the public."

I want to tell Deputy Blowick that, in 1955, the former Minister for Finance, Deputy Sweetman, asked the public for £20,000,000; he got £650,000. In 1956, he asked for £12,000,000, at over 5½ per cent., and he got only £10,000,000. When Fianna Fáil were in office previously, two loans were issued. The first was over-subscribed and the second was almost as successful.

Mr. Davern

Nobody would give him half-a-crown in the end.

Mr. O'Sullivan

This being the Deputy's maiden speech, we did not allow any interruptions, and surely the Deputy's colleagues will allow him the same right?

Mr. Lindsay

We allowed gross inaccuracies.

An Ceann Comhairle

This conversation is quite irregular. Deputy Davern knows that he should not interrupt his colleague.

Mr. Doherty

During the last campaign we had a visit to Ballina, in my constituency, from the leader of the Opposition. In his speech, as appearing in the Sunday Independent of the 24th February, 1957, Mr. Costello said:—

"Fine Gael offers to deal with the problem of establishing stability of government by co-operating with other Parties in Government and by seeking agreement with other Parties in the Dáil so that, as far as possible, by-elections will not be allowed to interfere with the policy of the Government established by the people."

In contradiction to that, I can only say, as I said during the campaign in North Mayo, that Mr. MacBride let the cat out of the bag when the burst-up came. I have a copy of a speech made by Mr. MacBride to a Clann na Poblachta meeting on Friday, the 24th February. In that speech Mr. MacBride said that the suggestion of the Minister for Finance that long term economic planning was possible only under a totalitarian régime and in a Communist State was as unworthy as it was uninformed. It seemed to be just one more of those silly attempts to suggest that one's political opponents were criminals, lunatics, Communists, Fascists or atheists.

He went on to say that the three major Departments of Government, Industry and Commerce, Finance and Agriculture, waged a private war between themselves, irrespective of the erstwhile Minister. I put it to the leader of the Opposition and the Deputies opposite that you could not have an agreed economic policy when you had war between the three major Ministers, those for Industry and Commerce, Finance and Agriculture. I shall repeat now what I said in my election campaign. In ancient Greece, when a person committed a crime, he was tied to horses and dragged asunder when the horses were driven in different directions. This country suffered the same fate when it was pulled north and south, east and west. The result was that we ended up in financial chaos. The Opposition must remember that they must not only oppose when they believe that Ministers are wrong but they must also help and encourage when they believe that Ministers are right.

Everybody concerned with the national welfare must work in concert and with enthusiasm if success is to be achieved. It must be emphasised that we have not the resources to meet all demands. As a nation we have been living beyond our earnings and we must tighten our belts. If we keep going ahead as we are going now, the prospects are that next year things will be quite good. We have in this Government what we lacked in the last one. That is unity. Much was lost in other years through lack of unity but with unity I see better times ahead for the man on the road.

As a businessman and a representative of a very poor constituency, I should like to deal with the problem of unemployment. I shall try to give the reasons which, in my opinion, cause unemployment in this country. I shall use a phrase which should be given capital letters and widely publicised in our two papers, the Irish Press and the Independent. That phrase is “under investment”. As machines are now doing much of the work formerly done by man, there are fewer jobs left for men to do. There is also more money made by the machines but that money is not being left idle. Those who make it invest it again in order to make more money. That money is reinvested and in its reinvestment it provides work for the men who have been thrown out of work by the machines.

In Ireland people with money to invest are not using it to start new industries or to extend and expand those we have. They are mostly investing their money abroad with the result that they are creating the jobs abroad instead of in their own country. If they do not invest the money abroad, they invest it in the banks which invest it abroad in bulk for them. As a result new jobs are still being created abroad while there is much unemployment in Ireland. The unemployed in this country thus have less money and they cannot buy as much goods as if they were working. That affects the businessman and he finds that he needs a smaller staff to produce the goods. So he has to let go some of his staff which creates more unemployment. The unemployed have to be paid the dole and in order to find the money for that, the Government is faced with the necessity of imposing increased taxation.

As a businessman, I say that businessmen in this country do not invest their money for the love of the country, to give employment, or for any other sentimental reason. Business and sentiment do not mix. A businessman invests his money to make more money, but before he sets up in business, to make or to sell goods, he must make certain of one thing, and that is that there is no scarcity of customers. What, therefore, are we to do to get industry going in this country? We have plenty of capital and we are exporting it. We have also plenty of labour and we are exporting it. Of sites, there are thousands going derelict. Raw materials we have in abundance. Of what, then, is there a scarcity? Every businessman in Ireland knows the answer. There is a scarcity of customers and when we can find a remedy for that we will have found one solution for unemployment.

In conclusion, I want to say, and I believe it to be a fact, that the steps which the Government have taken show cool, calm and deliberate appraisal of the problems that confront us. They show a resolute determination on the part of the Government to deal with the situation and to do that as far as possible without being unduly harsh on the people. The policy of the Government undoubtedly has the support and the confidence of the people. It is up to the Government to take steps which will help the people to save. Very many of the actions taken by the Government so far have created a climate for saving.

Mr. J. Murphy

This Budget merely reflects the mentality of the Government—old, tired, timid and afraid to change. Coming at a time in Irish history which calls for inspired and youthful leadership, it can be regarded only as a gesture of complete helplessness in the face of our ever-increasing economic difficulties. We know now why the Fianna Fáil Government have kept silent since the last general election about their plans for full employment. Their policy is now evident—the continuation of mass emigration. This will be the result of the Minister's Budget. It brings no ray of hope to the unemployed. It gives them no assurance that in the near future work will be available or that their plight will be relieved, and there is nothing facing the unemployed now, when the Fianna Fáil Government have been over 12 months back in office, but the emigrant ship or semi-starvation on the dole.

The Minister's first Budget was aptly described as a famine Budget and this one could very well be described as a coward's Budget. The Minister's passing reference to unemployment was the understatement of the year. He described this appalling situation as if it were of minor concern when, in actual fact, it calls for a radical change in Government policy. His casual reference to the unemployment figures as being too high surely indicates that the Government regard the unemployed as statistics rather than flesh and blood.

The zeal and enthusiasm displayed in former years by the Fianna Fáil Party have fizzled out like a damp squib and we now have the spectacle of tired and timid old men sitting back in complacency, telling all and sundry how they abolished the oath and how they kept us out of the war.

However, I feel confident that very soon a more youthful Ireland must assert itself, a youthful Ireland which now must be conscious that their leaders have failed and are afraid to embark on more effective policies which will give the working people of Ireland some hope and some assurance that they can rear their families and live in some peace and comfort here in Ireland.

Last week, the Provisional United Trade Union Organisation pointed out that the Government, by their complete indifference to unemployment, had retarded economic recovery. The worker, once again, has been asked to tighten his belt, despite the fact that Irish labour costs are the lowest in Europe. The reliance placed by the Government on individual employers to restore our economy is unbelievable. It means, in effect, that the Government are saying to the manufacturers' associations, the rings and the combines that the future of the people of Ireland lies exclusively in their hands. This slavish reliance is only a continuation of what was known as the big house policy of former years. The worker is expected to go cap in hand, to work harder for less money, with the promises of good times to-morrow but never good times to-day. I would ask the Taoiseach or the Minister, when he is replying to this debate, to say if this is the fruit of the great Fianna Fáil policy and will the Taoiseach tell me if this is his idea of Irish independence.

Since coming into this House, I have heard many Deputies speak in favour and praise of private enterprise. From what I can see and from what I know, private enterprise has brought the working man nothing but degradation and the lowest standard of living in Europe. Surely the time has come now for new and more vigorous policies. The Government must face up to their primary responsibility, that is, the welfare of the people of Ireland. They will have to live up to the promise they made during the last general election. They must now realise that they have a job to do, a job they promised to do, a job they said they were able to do, a job the Irish people expect them to do and a job they so far have neglected to do.

I should like to say, in conclusion: Let the Deputies who are listening to me now on the Fianna Fáil side of the House remember that no people will tolerate politicians whose only concern for the workless is a pre-election concern. You have the reins of Government now. You asked for it. Get cracking on the job. Get cracking right away or get out of the House, if you are not prepared to do the job.

Mr. W. Murphy

I am sorry that Deputy Doherty has left the House, because I should like to tell him that, in so far as the Party he represents is concerned, in his maiden speech in the House, he certainly made a very fine contribution. I regret, however, that in his opening remarks he trod the road of bitterness, that bitterness which so often raises its ugly head in this House. It might be as well for a young Deputy like him to let that bitterness sleep.

No matter what may be said from the Government side of the House in regard to this Budget, it certainly has not been received with any acclamation down the country. To my mind, that is due to the fact that we in this House are at last beginning to deal with an intelligent people. They are intelligent enough to see that it is an exact replica of last year's Budget, which, at that time, was considered very hard, and which placed undue hardship on the people. They had to bear that hardship during the past 12 months and they will still have to bear it during the coming year. The people are beginning to believe that the impositions placed on them by these two Budgets are due to the fact that the Government are aping, more or less, after the grandiose schemes of other countries which have much more resources of wealth than we have, and which are more industrialised than we are.

With reference to industrialisation, I must mention that in this Budget the Government is backing up and supporting the tempting offers which they are holding out to industrialists from other countries to come in and start industries here. With that, I thoroughly agree. If it be successful, it would be one step towards the relief of unemployment, and it would also be helpful in solving the problem of emigration, which arises out of unemployment. Whilst the Government are turning anxious and hopeful eyes in that direction, there is one thought they should always keep in mind, that this is an agricultural country, pure and simple. They should know by now that it was the agricultural community which, even in the worst of our crises, kept the country going and kept our heads above water. That has been sufficiently proven down through the years, and particularly was it proved last year.

At this stage, when there seems to be a little set-back, more or less, in that industry, it should be remembered that the dairy cow is the mother of that industry. Any careless legislation passed now touching on that cow and which could have a bad effect on her products and progeny would have a very serious effect indeed on the economic life of the whole country in the future. Since I came into the House in 1951, much of the legislation which has been passed has not benefited the community in the manner and through the channels in which it was intended to benefit it.

The Health Act has been in operation for three years and it is perfectly clear, after a three years' trial, that the people for whom it was really intended are certainly worse off to-day than they were before that Act was passed. People who always paid for their health services, and who were willing to pay for those services, are to-day availing of that Act, to avoid paying what they should pay and what they would be bound to pay, if that Act were not in force. We have here what might be termed a social welfare State.

I do not believe anybody, in the House or outside it, will begrudge that to the old age pensioners, to the widows and their orphans, to those who, through disease in early life, are not able to fend very well for themselves, or to the honest labourers who always work when they get work, and who are no burden on the State except when they are out of work. At the same time, advantage is being taken of legislation by some people who firmly believe that the social welfare State was set up solely to keep them walking idly around. It is common sense, and a well-known fact, that it was never ordained that a child would be born into this world to be raised in a State cot and buried in a State coffin. Unfortunately, that is the idea which some of our people hold. They avail in every way they can of any little loophole in legislation to keep them in idleness.

Anyway, it is a problem and a problem which has to be solved. With that, I shall just give one word of advice to the Government and it is this. Heretofore you had three-quarters of the population carrying one-quarter around on their backs. To-day the position is reversed and you have one-quarter carrying the three-quarters around on their backs. Is it not time that this Government, or some Government, asked themselves how long is that to last?

Mr. Kyne

As many speakers here have mentioned, the main factor in connection with this Budget was the want of interest by the public on Budget day. As Deputy Rooney pointed out, that was fairly evident from the fact that the Gallery, usually crowded on that day, was very sparsely occupied. Deputies who normally were seeking extra tickets and asking their fellow Deputies whether or not they would be using their tickets found no difficulty in getting an ample supply. I believe that that apathy of the public resulted from the fact that the minds of the people were conditioned not to expect any reliefs. The expectations were that, if we had increases, they would be either on cigarettes, tobacco, beer or petrol. I think that was the general belief throughout the country and also that if we did not have any increases there was very little hope of reliefs.

I suggest that during the term of office of the inter-Party Government—with the Labour Party as part of the Cabinet—there was a very different attitude shown by the public on each Budget day. With the social welfare groups, the old age pensioners, the blind pensioners, the sick and the unemployed, the main topic of conversation was: "I wonder how much of an increase we are going to get? I wonder will the means test be changed?" That was completely absent on the last Budget day. I suggest that is the fundamental difference between the Labour Party policy and that of the other groups. Notwithstanding the fact that the ordinary working people do not give any great measure of support to Labour's philosophy, yet when the Labour Party is associated with any other group in Government they expect, and usually get, some relief on Budget day, especially that group which the present Minister for Finance dismissed in a few words by stating:—

"For the social welfare group I cannot offer any relief." Just like that. That, as I say, is the fundamental difference between the Labour Party and other groups who form the political life of this country.

The Labour Party measures the needs of these people. They examine the cost and try to find, in so far as they humanly can, sufficient money to give that most defenceless group of our community the means of living. In other groups, particularly in Fianna Fáil, the attitude is that what is left over after the other needs of the nation have been satisfied will be available for relief of the social welfare group. The Labour Party recognises that these people have a right to these benefits as human beings. In the other case they are given as charity, something which can be spared only after everything else has been dealt with.

Those of us in the Labour Party demanding increases for the social welfare groups publicly announced that we would vote for increased taxation on certain luxury goods and on certain pleasures which the people enjoy, provided the increased taxation was earmarked for these increased benefits. But we believe that that is not absolutely essential and that social welfare benefits could be increased without any increased taxation. We believe that by amalgamation of the various types of insurance—nationalisation, if you wish to call it that—the profits made by the private companies engaged in insurance and assurance should be taken over by the Government, administered by the Government and used to increase benefits for ordinary people.

Some people may not believe that what I say is possible. I suggest that insurance firms do not engage in insurance just for the love of the people. They are not benevolent societies nor do they act as public charities. The motive that inspires them to carry on business is the same motive that gears industry in practically every country in the world—the profit motive. In one particular sphere of insurance, that of workmen's compensation, profits and administrative expenses for the Republic of Ireland in the year 1953, as published by the companies, would have permitted all benefits paid—and that is at the rate of £4 10s. per week for a completely disabled man—to have been doubled. There would still be £102,091 profit, if the code was carried out under the same conditions and with the same administrative costs permitted in the North of Ireland in the same year, based on a pro rata population. It is amazing to think that not only could the insurance companies have paid double the present figures in Ireland during that year but they would have had £102,091 profit for their shareholders at the same time.

That is only one code of insurance that I had an opportunity of studying in preparation for this Budget debate, but I am equally certain that the position of the various assurance companies throughout this country is such that sufficient could be provided to enable old age pensions, sickness benefit and unemployment assistance to be substantially increased without any additional cost to the Exchequer. It is my hope some day that a Labour group will secure the right to have a full investigation into that field and by its means—as has been done in other countries where there are Labour Governments—give to the people of this country enough to provide for them at a time when they most need it.

No one will suggest that the 1/- per week increase given in the previous Budget, as compensation for the increased cost of living on the removal of the subsidies, has in any way offset that increased cost. The mere fact that the ordinary industrial worker has, by agreement with the employers, secured the 10/- per week increase in practically every industry in Ireland indicates the vast difference there is between what was needed to compensate for the removal of the food subsidies and the increased cost of living and what was actually given to the old age pensioners.

As well as being a means of securing money for the Government to carry out the necessary services, the Budget is also looked upon as an indicator of what is to happen in the future. I think it was in the year 1953 when, as was stated by Deputy Corish, Deputy Aiken, as acting Minister for Finance in a Fianna Fáil Government, speaking on the Second Reading of the National Development Fund Bill, requested permission from the Dáil to give to the Government the sum of £5,000,000 to be added to the capital expenditure of this country and used, as he stated, at a particular period. I could not do more to illustrate my point than to quote his actual words. Let me quote, therefore, from Volume 143, columns 2794 and 2795 of the Official Report:—

"When the balance of payments is good and unemployment is not so good, that indicates that there should be an expansionist policy to make use of the energies of the unemployed and to develop the country further."

Surely there is no time at which these words are more applicable than at the present time. Our balance of payments is good, thank God, and our unemployment is very bad. Surely one would have thought that now was the time for the Government to throw money in and have an expansion of industry in the country but, unfortunately, as far as can be judged, there are no proposals for even emergency schemes in the Budget.

Time was when Fianna Fáil came into power many of us looked upon them as the progressive Party—as the Party who believed in the right of people to work. Time was when even Fianna Fáil could be criticised for lavish expenditure. Has there been a change of heart? Have the conservative elements in Fianna Fáil secured control? Has Fianna Fáil decided that unemployment can be solved simply by letting enough people emigrate to bring the population down to, say, 1,500,000 people? Is that to be the solution of our unemployment problem? The lack of proposals and the lack of provision by the Government in relation to the present unemployment figures would lead one to think that.

I am quite well aware it can be said by Fianna Fáil that the position this year is no worse than it was last year and that, in fact, it is slightly better, but that is not the answer. It is no answer to say that the other Government did not do it, because the fact still remains that, even with the employment period Order in operation, there are 79,000 people, men, women, boys and girls, seeking employment in this country and unable to secure it.

Is it any wonder that the bishop of Cork, Dr. Lucey, should be quoted in last Monday's Irish Independent as saying at a Confirmation ceremony in Skibbereen Cathedral that the drain of emigration was never worse; that the balance of payments might have been righted by the Government but that the country's balance of persons—a far more important thing—had not? There was, he said, an annual drain of 50,000 people leaving this country per year. I do not know where Dr. Lucey got his figure of 50,000, nor do I know whether or not it is actually correct, but I think it is pretty clear to all of us that whether it is 50,000, 40,000 or even as low as 30,000, notwithstanding our high birth-rate in this country, the statistical census return shows that a 20,000 per year population decline has taken place over a long period. If it continues, my figure of a population of 1,500,000 people may be arrived at in the not very distant future.

His Lordship, Dr. Lucey, was so moved that not only did he deplore it but he almost suggested that the public had a right and a moral duty to rise up in force against this emigration and this want of thought by the Governments of this country for the unemployed. He suggested that until the public got together and protested and refused to leave this country, the Governments of this country would do nothing but carry on in the old way.

A few years ago, when Fianna Fáil were in power and a grave unemployment problem existed throughout this State, and in this city in particular, and when the unemployed organisation was marching through the streets of Dublin and obstructing traffic, with a view to drawing attention to their position, they were accused in this House by the members of the then Government of being Communist agitators and we were charged with encouraging them. It is a very strange position now to find a bishop of the Catholic Church advocating the same protests as were made by these unemployed people.

The saddest thing in connection with emigration is that within the past year in my own constituency I have found that not only does the breadwinner go to Britain to earn a living but, having stayed there in employment for periods and returned for annual holidays at Christmas or some other period, he eventually, having tried to secure employment in Ireland, decides that for the future he will make his home in Britain. I have in mind two or three families at the present moment; there is one case where the husband whose wife and five children are now living in Ireland, has decided that he must take up his permanent abode in Great Britain. That is a desperate loss to this country, a man, his wife and five children leaving, all because one man could not secure sufficient employment and wages here to keep himself and his family. It is a position, I suggest, about which, while it continues, no Government can be complacent, and say: "Look at the balance of payments. Look at the fact that we have no increased taxation." While that position is there any Budget or any regulation made in this House is not acceptable to the people.

While it is a fact that there is general acceptance of the Budget as a good Budget in the sense that there is no increased taxation—that is the normal reaction of the ordinary man in the street: if his position is not worsened, it is not so bad—and while the ordinary man in the street thinks along those lines because of the very short memory the public have, it must be remembered that, as compared with the time when the inter-Party Government were in office, many millions of pounds then used by that Government to subsidise the essential foods of the ordinary people, are being saved in this Budget to use in other ways. The working man has been deprived of that although the taxation which made it possible to give it has been continued. While it is true that there is no increase in taxation as compared with the period when food subsidies were being paid by the Government, a sum of approximately £7,000,000 is now being squandered in some other way without any relief to the people generally.

On the 15th March of this year there were 79,468 unemployed people. I have here with me the industrial analysis of the live register of 1958 as issued by the Central Statistics Office last month. I find that out of those 79,000 people who are on the live register, there are 19,209 people who had been engaged in building, contracting and works of construction, 10,361 people who had been engaged in construction and maintenance of roads, bridges, railways, tramways, etc., and 30,456 people who had been engaged in agriculture, forestry, market gardening, etc. That would leave some 19,000 unemployed people. If those others were employed, those 19,000 unemployed would be the natural carryover of people leaving one job and not having time to get another job without going on the register for a period. It would include people of a certain age who were physically incapable of carrying out certain types of work and who would have to obtain a certain amount of unemployment in between jobs, pending the receipt of old age pensions or suitable employment.

These categories I have read out are starved for employment because money is not available to capitalise and expand this work. This Government, any Government, could, by an infusion of money into these industries, relieve that serious unemployment. It is not an insurmountable task but unfortunately in this Budget the indications are that no such action is proposed. As I said earlier, apparently the solution to the unemployment problem is to let emigration take care of it.

Perhaps it is just as well. Perhaps it is as well that the people got a taste of the strong Government they have at present. I remember during the emergency years, right up to 1947, the period when Fianna Fáil had a strong Government, when under the guise of various emergency regulations they were enabled practically to have a dictator State. They so raised the scorn and disgust of the people that in 1948, at the first available chance the people got, they changed that Government, notwithstanding the fact that there was no single Party which could form a Government of its own. Due to a breakdown of that Government in 1951, as a result of what happened over the mother and child scheme in the Health Act, Fianna Fáil got back to power. However, immediately they went into office they again initiated a hairshirt policy for the public, and in 1954, again given the opportunity, the people put them out.

I believe that now the public should not get the opportunity of putting them out but that Fianna Fáil should be given its head, that it should go through the statutory term of office in this House and get every chance of carrying out its policy. I believe that the day will come when the ordinary people will agree with those of us in the Labour Party who say that there is only one policy this country should adopt and that is the policy of keeping the Irish people working in Ireland for themselves and their families.

Mr. Lindsay

In discussing the nation's finances as is customary at this time of the year and on this motion, people are apt from time to time to be swayed by reasons other than reasons coolly thought out. There are times when it might be pardonable, there are times when in fact it is pardonable, that one's indignation should tend to get the better of a reasoned approach.

I listened to-day with some regret, with a great deal of disappointment and with a feeling of little hope for the future of this country, to one of the younger Deputies making a speech associated with which there was no maidenly blush of truth, but associated with which was the bitterness conceived, designed and put into it by older warriors who seek to perpetuate that bitterness Without a feeling of indignation, one could hardly have listened to the puerile piffle addressed to this House to-day, in what I must forgive as not his effort but the effort of others, by Deputy Doherty from my constituency. It was only because it was a maiden speech—and must now bear the rather paradoxical description of being so—that those of us on this side refrained from interrupting him. We might say indeed, when listening: "We heard it before, Joe; we heard it in several places." The propaganda effort associated with it might be commendable to members of Fianna Fáil, but its effect on those who have to listen and those who have to read it will be tremendous, when they find that that is what we are to be treated to, that that is the kind of regard for truth which we are to expect from men entering public life for the first time.

If this Budget can in any way be measured by any public reaction, it will be measured—and I say with confidence that it is being measured—by the presence of what can only be described as stunned disillusionment on the part of the people. It is tragic, and has a tragic psychological effect, in that it is nothing more or less than another addition this year to the monument of fraud and false promises; it is a perpetuation of the charter given to unashamed failure to carry out promises solemnly made to the people.

I listened to Deputy Doherty to-day, snatching visual aid from what was prepared for him by others, talking about food subsidies and now giving the reason for the removal of the subsidies as simply and solely the following by the Government of the advice of a commission set up to inquire into conditions generally, by the then Minister for Finance, Deputy Sweetman. That commission was sitting prior to March of 1957. Trade statistics were available, figures were published in Iris Oifigiúil that kept anybody with any interest in the nation's finances completely au fait with the situation.

I am compelled to contrast the reason given by this neophyte in public life for the removal of subsidies with what he told the people of Glenamoy in North Mayo on the second Sunday before the general election. I asked then for a direct statement from him— he was to speak after me—as to whether the price of bread, flour and butter would or would not be increased if Fianna Fáil were returned to power. On that morning Mr. Doherty as he then was, with commendable reticence and commendable caution, but with fraudulent implication told the people: "You can always rely on Mr. de Valera to do the right thing." Following upon that, there was a tremendous effort and with banners and bunting, and with oil sodden torches, the Taoiseach—Mr. de Valera, as he then was—came to the town of Belmullet with all the panoply of war. In passing, I might say I fully agree with Deputy Doherty when he says that business and sentiment do not mix—because the local Fianna Fáil Cumann was greatly annoyed afterwards when Deputy Doherty's business house furnished an account for the bunting and oil.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That does not arise on the motion. I suggest the Deputy should return to the Financial Motion and leave the election aside.

Mr. Lindsay

I am entitled, Sir, I submit, to make a general comment on the whole financial story of the State leading up to and including this Budget statement.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I cannot see how the oil and bunting in Belmullet arise.

Mr. Lindsay

Oh, you have no idea how the people of Belmullet remember the oil and bunting. In any event, leaving the oil to fade away out of the sod, leaving the bunting to fall in tatters, we must remember the scene there, when people for miles and miles around, including people not from the Taoiseach's Party, stood there in this artificial and expensive light, waiting for the words of truth from somebody who, the people in another village had been assured, would always do the right thing. The Taoiseach told them: "We have never done the things they said we would do. They have told you that we are going to increase the price of bread..." There was a sigh of relief from the whole meeting——

Mr. Loughman

Very dramatic.

Mr. Lindsay

The voice of truth had spoken; the price of bread would not go up said the Taoiseach. Any drama that either Deputy Loughman or myself could instil into any speech could not compete with the cruel drama of a disillusioned people finding the food subsidies removed and finding themselves required on the same incomes, with reduced earning power, to pay more for their food.

"Business and sentiment do not mix." We had a treatise on the price of tea and how we failed to keep down the price of tea. On that question, all I want to say is this: I am sure that when Deputy Doherty spoke of the failure of business and sentiment to mix, he was speaking with remorseful recollection from an economy-conditioned heart. Whether we operate on the principles of justice in ancient Greece, or whether we operate on the principles of justice obtaining to-day, we must always remember that there is something fundamental in all systems of justice, that is, that truth is essential to its full implementation. I have no doubt that time will be the real cure, time for our people fully to realise that the difference between the promise and the performance is vital to them.

The psychological effect on our people of the gap between the promise and the performance was reflected in some way in the Public Gallery of this House on Budget day. Nobody expected anything; half the capacity came. In spite of that fact, on the following day, the political correspondent of a Party-tied paper, the Irish Press, says: “Dr. Ryan spoke to a crowded House and to a thronged Public Gallery”. The Irish Times, for which I hold no brief, made the comment on the same day that the Gallery was but half full and, as far as I can recollect, the Irish Independent, the other national daily, pursued its characteristic tradition by keeping to the middle of the road and did not mention the fact at all.

We were all here; every Deputy on the far side of the House could have seen for himself the failure of the public to react. The objective, from the Budget speech of 1957, was to have a balanced Budget. For a month prior to the introduction of this Budget, the Ministers in the Government spoke at strategic points all over the country, conditioning the minds of the people for something harsh as things were not going well, and too much could not be expected. Reliefs, it was indicated, were out of the question. They reiterated with great solemnity the desired objective, a balanced Budget. Was that the sole objective of the Government in inflicting on our people last year hardships which, in my view, were unnecessary and unjust in so far as they were economically unsound by reason of timing and degree and so far also as they represented a failure to fulfil promises?

Lest anybody might think that, when talking of promises, I am dealing only with what the Taoiseach said at Belmullet on that occasion, I should make it clear that it was not something that slipped out. It was deliberate, because on the same night in Waterford, the Tánaiste went so far as to say, in referring to the food subsidies and their likely withdrawal: "How definite must our denial of these stupid allegations be?" In other words, for us in Fine Gael, for our then colleagues in Labour, Clann na Talmhan and the Independents supporting us to suggest that the subsidies might be removed was an allegation which was not alone untrue but which it was stupid even to conceive. It was all part of a plan and the plan worked. The people got the Government they wanted and they wanted that Government because they believed passionately in what they were told. But having given Fianna Fáil the power, the people were very smartly smitten into what I have already called stunned disillusionment, a disillusionment which can have no other effect— and, in my view, this is its paramount effect—than to create in the minds of the people contempt for public men and the words they give, contempt for the institutions which they represent, contempt for the age-old proverb: "A man is as good as his word."

It is in circumstances such as these that we find our people without hope, without courage. They have lost their hope and their courage because they have been beaten out of them by the cudgels of untruth and unscrupulousness when conscience no longer exists.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 1 May 1958

Committee on Finance. - Resolution No. 9—General (Resumed).

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 1 May 1958